Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyBob
A big problem with making a change, is that there is no "right" length of copyright. Reasonable arguments can be made for all sorts of alternative arrangements, as well as for the current scheme. Forcing change from one arbitrary scheme to a different arbitrary scheme is naturally much more difficult than changing from something bad to something good.
In a worldwide economy, there is certainly something to be said for making them consistent between countries, and any changes would likely fly in the face of that.
|
Perhaps then, a scheme of copyright shouldn't be arbitrary or based on what sound like good arguments to an uninformed listener.
We've been at the copyright game for quite awhile and there is a big body of research on the economic harm that different lengths of copyright have. A copyright scheme could easily be built that uses that body of research to grant creators the minimal length of time required to encourage them to create (which is the purpose of copyright).
Those saying that it's okay for copyright to be long but patents to be relatively short are missing the point. Copyright isn't a gift from society to creators, it has the functional purpose of benefiting society overall; it doesn't matter that the harm of a long copyright is less obvious, if there is no benefit to the public in having long copyright than it should be shorter as it is not serving its purpose.
Those pointing to 50 Shades of Grey are also missing the point; overly long copyright can limit the dissemination of important works like The Satanic Verses, The Rise and Fall of Civilizations, etc. Just because some books are better off forgotten doesn't mean that we should make all books easier to forget.
Here's an easy example: Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech" is protected jealously by his estate. It's not hard to make the argument that society would be better off in small way if that speech could be disseminated by more people without having to pay a licensing fee.