Proposal to Cut Length of Copyright

I am not sure if this makes sense, but well it's about time there are some possible paths being discussed.

Directly from Slashdot:
Linky

"InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe proposes a novel solution to the ongoing spate of RIAA lawsuits over alleged music copying. He suggests legislation which cuts back corporate copyrights from 120 years to 5 years. "We should do what we do to children who misbehave," he writes. "Take away their privileges." Wolfe says this is regardless of the misunderstanding surrounding the latest case, which apparently isn't about ripping CDs to one's own computer. As to those who say copyrights are a right: "That's simply a misunderstand of their purpose. Copyrights, like patents, weren't implemented to protect their owners in perpetuity. They are part of a dance which attempts to balance off societal benefits against incentives for writers and inventors. You want to incentivize people to push the state of the creative and technical arts, but you don't want give those folks such overbearing protections that future advances by other innovators are stifled." What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?"

Cut 'em! Cut 'em deep!

I think they should be shortened although I don't know about to 5 years. That would seem to make sense for "things", although in the case of music/art it almost seems to short. I would think in the case of music there should be a copyright on the song for the songwriter that is lengthy but not on the recording. In other words, I have no problem with a songwriter continuing to benefit from something that they wrote for their lifetime, but I have issues with record companies trying to get royalties for perpetuity for a particular recording of a song.

I think copyright is a little over rated, cut them 😛

I think the current 120 years (I thought it was only 90) is a bit excessive. But, I would like to mention that as much as I F'n hate the RIAA, I don't believe it was as much the music industry's doing as it was Hollywood, the MPAA and Disney.

If I remember correctly, under the old system, Mickey Mouse would be in the public domain already. Disney would have nothing to do with that and pushed really hard for the extension. In fact, I bet as Mickey's time comes up again, they will push it even further. It's all about protecting the brand and future revenue.

Just imagine if Mickey was in the public domain right now. Think of all the cool stuff we would see on the Internet.

Yea, it's time to take back the rights of the people.

record companies been killin themselves we hardly need to do any work :-p

I thought that this was appropriate for this thread. From Something Awful - liner notes from our friends in the RIAA (a joke)

I love the term "Well Draculas"!!!

very nice, VERY nice i like it

And back on subject the copyrights need to be cut back to the pre-Bono days(90) and less.. as the reasoning behind the extension is weak.. 'because lifespans have increased' a person must apparently be well past dead and their childrens children had plenty of time to reap the rewards on their work.. oh and Europe did it too..


Wiki:
The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 – alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the Act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] The Act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, also increasing their term of protection by 20 years, to a total of 95 years from publication.