Aren't copyright terms far too excessive?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

In 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (better known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) increased the length of copyright from the already high life of the author plus 50 years or 75 years for a corporation to life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporation (after publication; it is 120 years after creation if that date is earlier).

The Constitution granted power to issue copyrights only for a limited amount of time and the term of the first Copyright Act was 14 years (with one extension of 14 years if the author wished to expand it later on) and only applied to American citizens.

Aren't these more recent terms far too expensive and shouldn't we go back to a modified form of the Copyright Act of 1790 (but still restricted to only apply for Americans, not foreigners)?

Answer 1

Do you really think that Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain? That anyone who wants can start using Mickey for everything they want?

I don't. Mickey belongs to Disney and should remain Disney's property forever.

Everyone else should invent their own characters.

I don't know why you would call the latest terms "expensive". Maybe you really mean expansive.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as *some entity* legaly holds the copyright and is actively using it, the copyright should remain valid. Disney is actively using Mickey and thus retains the sole copyright.

On the other hand, no one holds copyrights on Jane Austin's work, and thus it's fair game.

I really consider this act the "anti-slimeball" act. Only slimeballs need to steal someone else's intellectual property.

Answer 2

The previous poster might want to look at the famous Disney characters such as Snow White and a bevy of others, and realize that the Disney fortune was primarily created on the backs of re-telling stories in the public domain.

The reason for copyright is explained directly in the Constitution, as the asker noted.

It is to strike a balance between the incentive to create and the right of the public to use what is created, by creating time-limited monopolies.

The reason for granting copyrights at all is very clearly stated as for "the advancement of the arts and sciences".

How does allowing Mickey Mouse to belong to Disney "forever" (which is unfortunately the current case for all intents and purposes) serve the Constitutional purpose of the copyright and advance arts and sciences?

I can't think of a single way, and it is my job to try to do so.

I would rather see Disney compete on a level playing field, or even one where they have assets that favor them - the brand, the know how, the stories, the animators, and so forth.

Let them leverage all that in a market for Mickey Mouse - they will be able to do jut fine. If someone else does well for a while, like makes a cool game, then let Disney buy them out if they need to control everything.


I don't know if 20 years is the right term or not, because there are international treaties attached at this point.

But this is a debate sadly lacking here, and in the public sphere in general. Because the truth is, copyrights are granted by the People, it is not that People are subservient to copyrights.

Answer 3

I think the longer terms have gotten too long -- life of the author plus 20 years -- or 25 years plus one renewal of 25 years -- or something like that is more than sufficient.

As to your comment about "Americans only" -- the problem with that is we've agreed to many international treaties -- we honor foreign copyrights, and the other countries honor US copyrights -- without that, most of the protection afforded by copyrights is useless, because without that international protection, the copying can take place in foreign countries and there would be no recourse.

Answer 4

Originally I thought this question was going to be dumb, but I totally agree. I liken copyrights on IP to patents on ideas: you should be able to secure your investment in your work, but at the same time the community is going to want to reinvent it. I think copyright on music should last 20 years, and then you merely have to cite the source if you re-use it. 20 years is plenty of time to make money off of something, and I can't imagine anyone needing to keep collecting money on their IP after 20 years, it should have made plenty if it's still marketable by then.

Answer 5

Obviously you have never had an idea worth anything or you would not feel this way. If you create value where none existed before you should have the ability to control that value, if you want to give it away you can but why should others be able to profit off of your work when all they did was steal it?

Answer 6

look interior the real worldwide. Decode this lyrics " you will see " the guideline of seventy two? Time? boost? restoration? no longer in straightforward terms at homestead? yet worldwide-huge? Be real looking? no longer in pushing, shoving and elbowing one yet another off the pyramid at the same time as puffing, huffing in pulling and dragging the heavy encumbered of concrete block all the thank you to the astounding of the pyramid in Egypt. Luke 21.30-36 Luke 6.39-forty,forty-one-forty 5,forty six-forty 9 Luke 9.25,fifty 5-fifty six,60 a million Timothy 6.7 Revelation 22.thirteen-17 Exodus 20.a million-7 Matt 5.9,14 Luke 24.forty 4-forty 5,fifty seven-forty 8 Exodus 20.12 Exodus 20.a million-18 Matt 22.17-21,32 What do you think of?

Answer 7

look at the life expectancy in 1790, and then consider that movies, tv, internet , dvd etc did not exist.