Amazon.com Widgets

Should we shorten the length of copyright protection?

  • Yes around 10 years

    Well developments are fast and companies still need to keep developing for competitive uses so why can't they just share old techs to everyone? That will make the world more competitive and don't reduce so much incentives the benefits just outweigh the cost
    we have little economic growth even in this era of chance because of this we need to change the way of copyrights

  • Yes around 10 years

    Well developments are fast and companies still need to keep developing for competitive uses so why can't they just share old techs to everyone? That will make the world more competitive and don't reduce so much incentives the benefits just outweigh the cost
    we have little economic growth even in this era of chance because of this we need to change the way of copyrights

  • Yes 10 years might be enough

    Because today techs developments are fast and companies still need to develop tech to compete with another tech 10 years are enough for most techs and this will inspire more competitors to use techs 10 years ago and develop a new tech then the world will be a lot more efficient

  • We should shorten copyright from 95 years to 50 years

    We should shorten the length of copyright because copyright was created to create more freedoms among creators. Not less. Why the hell should we not be able to use characters created in our lifetime until 95 years after they were created (when almost no one alive remembers when they were first published).

  • I think the better question to ask would be, " what should be copyrighted and for how long".

    Many people are not aware of the greatest Copyright Rush in american history. Paint a few emblems on your hat, create a nice little icon logo for your neighborhood club, embroider a few symbols or doodles on your shirt, chances are if the wrong people see it, you could be liable for copyright infringement. You would think we would have freedom of expression. But we dont. The problem arises when the internet became real popular. Stock image companies sought free-lance graphic designers to design bulk stock logos for the purpose to sell licenses for people who want to use them. As you may be aware the requesit for creativity is real real low. What this means is, that there are thousands of thousands of small symbolic designs where the stock image companies claim copyrights to. Now one thing to think about. Symbolism has been aroud for as long as humanity has. For something that is so small, there really is nothing new under the sun. But, there is no previous record of these things being copyrighted. For example, Lets say that there is no proof that the color red existed and here I am saying that I invented the color red. That may not be the best example in the world, but I hope that you understand what I mean.

  • I think the better question would be, " what should be copyrighted for how long".

    Many people are not aware of the greatest Copyright Rush in american history. Paint a few emblems on your hat, create a nice little icon logo for your neighborhood club, embroider a few symbols or doodles on your shirt, chances are if the wrong people see it, you could be liable for copyright infringement. You would think we would have freedom of expression. But we dont. The problem arises when the internet became real popular. Stock image companies sought free-lance graphic designers to design bulk stock logos for the purpose to sell licenses for people who want to use them. As you may be aware the requesit for creativity is real real low. What this means is, that there are thousands of thousands of small symbolic designs where the stock image companies claim copyrights to. Now one thing to think about. Symbolism has been aroud for as long as humanity has. For something that is so small, there really is nothing new under the sun. But, there is no previous record of these things being copyrighted. For example, Lets say that there is no proof that the color red existed and here I am saying that I invented the color red. That may not be the best example in the world, but I hope that you understand what I mean.

  • I Think a better question would be what things should deserve what lengths of copyright protection. This is what the courts have failed to address.

    I am referring to the idea of when the freedom of expression comes into conflict with copyright law. Maybe you paints some emblems on your hat or make a logo for your local club using a geometric shape, or maybe you embroider some symbols or patterns on your shirt. The sad truth is, you have alot of stock image companies that have upon thousands of thousands of small logo icons that they supposedly own copyrights to. And these are just small simple symbols. This is largely because the requisite for copyright protection is extremely low. However, there is no arbitrary proof in the laws eye that emblems and symbols can have multiple meanings and do recycle over time. The human race has been around for time immemorial. I'm sure that these small logo icons have been thought of before, and even drawn on paper. But this is where the problem is... There is no actual record saying that these have been made before. And as I said before, we really don't have any freedom of expression because about every little doodle or logo icon is already owned and you have to buy a license from a stock company to use a few icons for your creative project. Especially, when you could just as easily think up and draw these on your own." Its kinda like saying I own the color red when there is no actual proof that red existed before my genius mind thought of it." Anyway, if you doodle some symbols or designs on your clothes or anything else for that matter, you more than likely are guilty of copyright infringment, because we have too much copyright law and chances are even the most simplest things like an inch wide icon is already owned by one of the thousands of thousands of people that are claiming copyright on stuff just like this. Now, Novels on the other hand, that is quite a bit different. But that was not what I was going to talk about. Often times is the little things no one thinks about is what gets us.

  • Yes, they allow companies to hold onto material for the benefit of profit long after the original.

    Currently, copyright lengths are current the life of the author plus 70. It doesn't really make sense that some copy rights are so long that is the creator had created their work at birth, the copyright might still be withstanding when they die. They don't need to be this long. It's not like someone would only create one piece of work to profit off of, unless the work was wildly sucessful, but then they would not need to have overly long copyrights becuase they would have made enough money to surive even if their claim expired after 30 years.

  • Yes! Shorten Copyright Duration!

    The expansion of the duration of copyright protection has no reasonable justification. Large corporations use it to control works of art, preventing remix artists from using that material to create something new. It's a regime used to control culture and needs to be fixed! More copyright exceptions should also be recognized!

  • 50 is as high as it should be.

    Look here. If you can't make make a decent profit in 20-30 years of copyright, you aren't going to make it with 95 or 3000 years of copyright.

    Back when works needed to be renewed, most of them wern't. If we put a renewal requirement on our current, insanely long copyright duration every 10-20 years, most works would lapse.

    The current lenght doesn't protect anything. It's just making most of a century's unprofitable works inaccessible.

  • It is good the way it is

    It is good the way it is The person who set up the copyright protection because they came up with an idea to promote or develop something. If they put a lot of time and energy into this item, obviously they would want to hold on to it for a long time. Maybe restricting what you can copyright would be a better thing to look at.
    Report Post

  • No, copyright helps protect a person's legacy.

    Copyright lasts for an entire lifetime of the person, followed by a set amount of years following the person's death (currently 70 years after publication in the United States). While some people may find it frustrating that they can't legally copy things like books, copyright protects a person's work and makes sure that this person, and then their family, benefits from it. People in other jobs would be quite frustrated if someone got all of their hard work for free. Allowing people who create to own what they created, and then pass down some of the profit to their family, is the least we can do in thanks for them contributing something of value to society. That we eventually "own" it in public domain eventually is what is shocking.

  • No we should not shorten the length of copyright protection

    No, I do not think that it is fair to those people who have worked hard to have their works copyrighted and to try and make a profit off their hard work to then have their copyright shorten. The copyright limits should remain intact so that the people who filed the copyright can see some profits.

  • No, we should not shorten the length of copyright protection

    Copyright protection was put in place so that people with creative ideas could get paid for their work and company's couldn't just use their work for their own personal gain. Any decrease in the amount of time a copyright protection last could be up for debate. Do they want to shorten by a couple of years? Or shorten it to only last 1 year to which point the copyright would be useless.

  • No, shortening the length of copyright protection is not the right kind of reform.

    I would be the first to argue that copyright law needs to be seriously reexamined, but I don't think that shortening the length of copyrights would be helpful. Copyrights exist for such a long time to protect the creator and hopefully provide for them and their families; by shortening that period of copyright, the creator's funds are in danger due to imitators. Ideally, copyright reform would allow for different kinds of usage in legal ways, but shortening copyright length really only has the potential to harm the people the laws were designed to protect.

  • No, not at all.

    Copyright protection should not be shortened. Property is property, especially intellectual property, and it deserves to remain the property of its "inventor" for as long as that inventor wishes it to be. Shortening copyright protection is unfair to the creator, and could result in further problems arising from a free-for-all attitude once the copyright would expire.

  • It is good the way it is

    The person who set up the copyright protection because they came up with an idea to promote or develop something. If they put a lot of time and energy into this item, obviously they would want to hold on to it for a long time. Maybe restricting what you can copyright would be a better thing to look at.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.