This week’s assignment was to discuss the length of time for which a copyright should last. I personally believe that copyright laws are too long. The current law states that a copyright will be active through the length of the creator’s lifetime PLUS seventy years after their death… This act was pushed for by our favorite actor/ singer/ producer/ politician, Sonny Bono. Thank you, Sonny, for always sticking up for to the little guy. Mickey is a small mouse and all… Unfortunately, not all creators are funded through a gigantic corporation such as Disney, and really don’t need up to 120 years of copyright protection…
Originally, The Copyright Act of 1790 instituted that the law would protect a copyrighted work for fourteen years. Also, the copyright could be renewed for an additional 14 years if the creator was still alive. I do understand that 14-28 years isn’t enough time to productively protect an author’s income, if that is their sole profession. So, to defend our hardworking entertainers (authors, inventors, singers, actors, etc;) the U.S. continued to increase the length of copyrighted time.
What is the whole purpose of a copyright, anyway? Many would say that it is an effective way to secure the original creativity of an author and inspire other authors to create their own, individual work. I personally see copyrights as a way for authors to receive the financial benefits of their work without worrying about infringement and having their creation stolen and profited from. So, based off of this assumption, an author would need a copyright span long enough for them to reap their benefits and… And…And, um… Well, that’s my point. Any copyright length longer than the author’s lifetime that is virtually useless and is only restricting the public domain.
I completely agree with Eric Flint’s essay on Copyrights. He stated that “authors need to have enough protection to enable them to be able to make a living as full-time writers” and “protection has to be long enough to provide them with a motivation to write for the public.” As far as I am concerned, those are the only two justifiable concerns that authors should have. I think that a copyright should cover a span of 50 years after publication with a maximum of a 20 year extension (which would require a legal process to determine if they truly needed that extra time.) My reasoning is that 50 years is enough to cover the majority of an author’s lifetime, and if they are still alive after 50 years, they should be old enough to live on a retirement fund. However, if some complication were involved that put their necessary income at risk, the 20 year expansion would be available to those who are willing to go through the long, legal process to receive it.
Overall, I think that a copyright term which exceeds an author’s lifetime is an unnecessary length of time. The great majority of published work will not be the next “Moby Dick” and it is not necessary to protect books that will be off the shelves in three months. Once you cross that line, the copyright is becoming a corporate evil. Not everyone can get their way like Disney can and as soon as their copyright laws expire, we are sure to see another extension forced onto the rest of us.
