The current state of copyright law in the USA makes me very angry. As pointed out in the videos and reading, copyright law is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, Copyright was meant to provide the owner a ‘limited monopoly’ so that they could benefit financially from their creation. However, Copyright law now extends to 100 years for corporations or the authors life + 70 years. This makes absolutely no sense.
The reason our forefathers created a system where copyright expired was to encourage authors to make the next cultural contribution. This is the key. As a copyright holder, in exchange for benefiting our culture you receive a limited monopoly on your work as payback. However, in our current system, you can pass your copyrights onto your grandchildren and they can generate license fees. Are we creating a class of ‘idle rich’ that produce nothing? Limiting copyright length would also benefit the remix culture because copyright would actually expire on older works and they would be freely usable.
At the rate we are going, Copyright can soon be renamed to forever-right since congress continues to extend its length.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing completely with you! Especially after watching the videos and readings for this week, I’m unable to think our founding father’s desired to set up copyright legacy families that extend almost two centuries in some cases. It seems in our country that the industry has been navigating these waters in politics and pushing to keep the extensions rolling in on the works. While I do feel copyright law has a place in our society, the current incarnation is not workable for the digital age and I strongly feel its needs to approach the ideas in a more global manner for them to work. Great response and who knows, maybe in our lifetime something will finally change in regard to digital work and copyright.
Micahel,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the current copy right extensions were a result of lobbying efforts from corporate interests and a few individuals that want to control their own interests. I can maybe understand this from their perspective but I agree with you that this has created a stifling system that inhibits creativity and places severe limitations on educators. I wish there would be just a little more common sense approach to this. I think a blend of the creative commons solution and copyright law may help to alleviate the dilemma.
Michael
ReplyDeleteFor some reason when I think of copyright I think of George Gershwin. A brilliant 30 year old internationally acclaimed musician tragically struck down way to early in his career by a brain tumor. Maybe I think of him and copyrights because the first major re-write of copyright laws in the 70’s, as Michael mentioned, just about the time Gershwin’s ownership of his own songs was probably near the end of their term. (I don’t remember for sure....) more on that later.
Since the early days of the recording and radio, this rascal of ownership and copyrights has been a tricky issue. Composers, performers, and artists want to have a reasonable compensation for their artistic endeavors crossed with the possibility of a national and international market. Part of me really likes that they still struggle with copyrights because on computer “streaming broadcasts” of morning radio shows I don’t have to listen to commercials. Yay! All tied up, I assume, in copyrights and royalties/pay scales to announcers, writers, and providing that content.
Gershwin though is a good enough example. His music has a very broad commercial, jazz, and serious classic appeal. His catalog of music has a great deal to offer to a very wide range of audiences and purposes. If his estate or family did not benefit from his work it would eventually make its way into a corporate entity that would capitalize on it. Or worse yet go for free to anyone and everyone at will to be used for their gain. An artist should be the one who has a say in their work.
There is no doubt that in recent years there have been manipulations of laws to benefit business interests and corporations. But if you look at many of the standard practices in recording contracts with the music industry and the way money for live concerts and recording contracts benefit the recording companies more than the artists it makes you wonder why someone would get into the business.
I maintain without some of the copyright laws the corporations would tie things up more than they are now leaving the artists without any access to their own music to earn a living appropriate to their success and popularity. If these artists are not allowed to control their interests someone “bigger” than them will.