• In their current form, yes.

    The current state of copyright has been stretched by repeated lobbying into something far beyond what it was originally. The idea of copyright was for someone who created something to be able to benefit from it for a time, and then allow the creative work to pass into the public domain. That second part has been eradicated with the systematic extension of copyright, so now many things that would have historically already passed into the public domain remain under copyright, and thus cannot enrich our shared cultural heritage.

  • Copyright laws are outdated and therefore cause more harm than good.

    Copyright laws were created before we had the same power of technology that we do today that allows for much of the "infringing" behavior. Many copyright-holders are more eager to get their work seen than to make money off of it, because money can be made in other ways, through the franchise. Copyright laws should change to embrace this new turn in the digital age.

  • Copyright laws make life hard

    With the invention of the internet we now see people copyrighting everything from the name of their new type of dessert to the name of their pet cat. It is impossible to do anything without having to worry about stepping on someone else's copyright. FB for example wants to copyright the words face and book. How ridiculous can a person be to think they are allowed to control those words and how they are used.

    Posted by: jus
  • Let the little man make something!

    They absolutely do cause more harm than good. Apple and other big corporations are able to get patents on things like "slide to unlock", then file complaints against companies that have similar features like tap to unlock. They also sue for things like rounded edges, even though that is the style currently. there's 2 choices, and they own once of them

  • Yes.

    It isn't practical in this day and age. Back then it was harder to get your works known. Now a days it is far easier. And since we are in the 'technology era' were everything is copying (whether intended or not) long copyrights make even LESS sense. While some years of copyright are okay (15 years if that) it shouldn't last longer than the material it's on. And by 15 years or so the work pretty much is forgotten about. So it would be immoral preventing others from making derivatives of such works. And with how long copyright is it makes it more tempting for big companies to partake in copy-fraud. Which they do so all the time. Even on works that ARE in public domain (or 'lack there of'). Creativity is a give and take; action and reaction. Keep one and prevent the other and you deprive people of creativity (look at he creative difference between America and Japan for example).

  • Yes, derivative works are what drives culture.

    The current law clashes with the human creative instinct. All human creativity is derivative to some extent; all are creations are ultimately inspired by previous exposure to stimuli, including the work of others. The model of copyright, on the other hand, is based on the premise that all legitimate creativity is 100% unique, which as we know from countless works of fan fiction and videos on YouTube is false. Copyright claims on unauthorized derivative works effectively amount to censorship.

  • Yes! It's retrogressive.

    The argument that patents and copyright motivate creativity is true but is an argument forwarded based on a very narrow view. These laws only motivate selfish, resource privilleged would-be inventors and authors whose main interest is not human welfare but wealth. Imagine if the such laws had been introduced at the birth of humanity, how many things would have been copyrighted? Cooking food, wearing clothes, building homes, e.T.C. Luckily, these things were never patented and man exploited them to the fullest. These earlier inventions show that copyright is not the biggest motivating factor in creativity and invention, to say the least it is a very selfish, trivial one. The real inspiration for invention is the existence of challenges met by the availability of ideas plus resources. If anything, removing the copyright altogether would stir up even more creativity in the sense that awareness that thousands more people could be making the same thing you are making is bound to inspire to worker hard to be the best.

  • People Pay for Appreciation

    Most of the people say that copyright law is more of harm to the society rather than benefit to the society. Well you are wrong. People pay for appreciation. To appreciate the work of the artist. The copyright law is also the motivation for artists to work more on their valuable projects. If there is no copyright, then there is no more creativity. Everything would be the same thing and people will get bore of the same rhythm or same idea.

  • Yes, why not?

    Basically it's simple, the government is basically taking away people's creativity and there wantings. People want to just listen to good music of their taste, and I believe that is truly what the government should believe in as well. Creativity is a key to art, music, and movies; maybe the copyright system is the reason so many people are so much less creative.

  • The current laws are outdated for the digital age.

    Many people who produce media, especially people who use websites for the sharing of their media, get some kind of strike against copyright. Media is used for a variety of reasons and copyright is getting in the way. The purpose of Copyright is so that people don't get money for reproducing or copying someone else's work and claiming it as their own (plagiarism), but are these laws one hundred percent updated to the modern era. No, they are not.
    Many companies and people--including celebrities--tend to partner with websites to issue copyright strikes. However, the unfortunate part is that these websites have to partner with these people, or else they'd probably get sued or even shutdown. But is a person copying someone's work by showcasing it on their social media or posting it on their YouTube Channel? It really depends on the nature of the video. If you're posting the entirety of a movie, song, or TV show on a website, then that should definitely be against copyright, because the creator is probably not getting any money for their creation. But should it be an offence to place a song or part of a movie in the background of a video? No, because I am not taking you work and I am not selling it. People are not focusing on your work in the background. They're focusing on what I am doing in the foreground. As long as I give credit to the original creator in my video or the description or caption I should be fine to put it in. What am I doing wrong? If anything I am promoting your work by showing it in the background of my creation. I am encouraging others to buy it by showing it to them. Do you not want promotion?
    Another issue is that copyright lasts for longer than needed. Copyright lasts for roughly seventy years, which is insane. Why would you need to get money for something made seventy years ago? What is a fair amount of time. About forty years would be appropriate and then an additional additional five years can be added if the creator(s) are still making at least ten percent of the highest prophet. Re-releases will not add an additional forty years to the copyright time.
    With the digital age changing the way that people view and produce media, the copyright laws of today definitely need some updating. The DMCA was created in 1996, before many of the major media platforms on the internet were created. We need and update to go with modern media on the internet.

  • Copyrights Intended to Protect Owners

    Copyright laws are intended to protect the owners of intellectual property, art, movies and music from people making money off of their stuff. Copyright laws don't do more harm than good. It is those people who download stuff to the Internet illegally that harm copyright holders. Places like YouTube are inundated with copyrighted images daily that should be taken down.

  • Copyright helps product ideas not get stolen

    Copyright makes me want to make more protected ideas since it helps protect mine so it doesn't get stolen since i made a product myself but someone stole it, My product was a flower design company but my so called friend stole it and made it her own now i live in the street with no money and she doesn't even talk to me anymore since she stole the idea.

  • Uncreative Entertainers, Thieves!

    I agree with the copyright laws for a number of reasons. One, It stops people from mimicing others creative ideas, Which is a big, Big deal in the entertainment industry. For example, How would you feel if you worked for weeks and months on a song or comedy routine, And after it became popular or boosted your career in some way, And another person either uses your same idea bit-by-bit, Or tried to change it around by using your idea as crutch because their routine was horrible and they knew it. This is one reason I think copyright laws don't do more harm than good. It makes people have to be successful based on their own creativity, Rather than tail-coating someone else's creative achievements. People who steal from others are uncreative and have no business in a world where creativity wins. These people are uncreative thieves!

  • Copy are meant for content creators

    Why people might think copy system is a good idea: if a person puts time and effort into making work all by themselves they feel gutted if someone takes all that work and takes credit for it, Because you know that person didn’t do anything in the project you worked so hard for. Copyright are intended to protect owners so it intended for good purpose. Though it may some times does harm it is meant for user who have their work stolen without a copyright system in place there will more and more work stolen for content creators who put their time and effort.

  • No and yes.

    Copyright laws in theory are important and should be strictly enforced, but the current law in the U.S. is excessive in the length of time protection is granted. Copyright protection should be more similar to patent protection, maybe just a few years more. The current law is a monstrosity and something the current populist movement should look at reforming.

  • No I don't think so.

    You people who are saying yes, in my opinion are automatically lazy. Imagine you actually put yourself into doing something and someone just steals it because they are to lazy to do there own thing. How would you feel? Oh yeah you would feel pretty upset wouldn't you. They have this law for a reason so people actually have to do there own crap instead of stealing someone elses.

  • There is no reason to encourage a generation who posses a false sense of entitlement to free content over the Internet.

    Copyright owners should not be deprived of the basic rights to claim ownership to works they have created. By eliminating copyright right laws altogether, it diminishes the incentive to create and innovate, knowing that your work can be copied without being attributed. The existence of copyright laws help regulate the use and distribution of these 'expressions' of ideas and should continue doing so.

  • No I do not think so.

    Copyright laws allow people to protect their ideas and own creations rather than get them stolen and sold of as their own work. It protects people making it do more good than it does harm. Yes at times it may cause certian individuals more problems, but overall the intention of them is good.

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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.