The MPAA and RIAA have helped create (in conjunction with the Center For Copyright Information and the Internet Keep Safe Coalition) a curriculum on copyright infringement for use in public schools. It's aimed at elementary school kids and seems heavily biased towards content owners. Currently part of a pilot program in California, there are hopes for it to be applied nationally. Both Wired and Torrentfreak have articles reviewing the material and it sounds like the program will only teach one side of copyright--that we always need permission to use someone else's creation--even though the Fair Use Doctrine explicitly states the opposite. Copyright law in this country is already absurd: a term of life of the author +70 years, and for corporate works it's 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. That's an insane amount of time for a creative work to be kept from the public domain. Almost five times what copyright terms were when the US was getting started (assuming the author dies around 80). As an artist myself, I want my works to be protected--but I think we need to come up with something more reasonable than what we've currently got. I propose that the copyright term for a creative work last for a period of 25-50 years, or until the author's death--whichever is longer. This lets the author receive benefit from his work during his lifetime (or lets his descendants benefit for a short period after his death) while ensuring the work will still enter the public domain in a reasonable time frame. Of course, when we start living to 200 years we'll need to re-examine the terms. And in the meantime, let's teach our kids what the laws actually state about the use of other's creative works.
(This post was inspired by these articles regarding the new copyright infringement based curriculum: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/; http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-and-riaa-to-teach-copyright-at-kindergartens-130918/; and by the letter C, and the number 2013.)
25 to 50 years seems just as arbitrary a number as 70+ or even 120 years to me. What's the added benefit from having free access to a creative work earlier? Why not put the same limit on estates? Maybe families should forfeit their property after a period of 50 years from the point of sale? If some builds a bench or writes a book (they're kind of the same in my opinion) why can't they keep rights to their creation and pass down their good fortune through their family? Not that I necessarily believe all these things I just don't understand the "need" for creative copyrights to be released earlier. Don't people have a right to their own property whether it's intellectual or more tangible?
ReplyDeleteChris, I agree with your point about the length being arbitrary. 25 or 70? I can see the case either way. But why not allow the creator to decide how long their work is copyrighted?
DeleteThanks for the comment. You're right, it is an arbitrary number, and any number we attach copyright terms will be. The big difference that I see between intellectual property and physical property (such as land, money, or other valuable property) is how the public is able to benefit from it. For physical property, the public derives benefit from the various public works funded by taxes on the property, whether estate tax or property tax. For intellectual property it doesn't really work out in the same way, though there are ways that intellectual property is taxed as well. I feel that the public gets more benefit from a creative work when the work enters the public domain--letting people build freely on it and allowing it to inspire additional creativity. US Copyright law holds "that an author of a work may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity for a limited period of time." I feel that the current term limit has been set so high that copyright is effectively perpetual, and I think that is wrong.
DeleteGood point. But I think the problem becomes more of an issue when a corporation can latch on to that copyright and not the actual creator. I think intellectual property should be more tied to the creator and not the corporation. I mean look at Disney. Walt Disney is gone, but they have a strangle hold on iconic American culture for their own personal monetization. Really Mickey Mouse has a huge impact on our culture. But by simply writing his name on this comment... I'm afraid I might be sued for royalties.
DeletePatent and Copyright law need a lot of reformation. Some of the strangest intilectual property laws involve farmers and re-planting seed. If you buy geneticly modified seed, you cannot replant the seeds since they are intelectual property.You have to buy it at a high price from the vendor. If you plant different seed and their geneticly modifed seed gets mixed in, you face steep penalties.
Delete25 to 50 years seems just as arbitrary a number as 70+ or even 120 years to me. What's the added benefit from having free access to a creative work earlier? Why not put the same limit on estates? Maybe families should forfeit their property after a period of 50 years from the point of sale? If some builds a bench or writes a book (they're kind of the same in my opinion) why can't they keep rights to their creation and pass down their good fortune through their family? Not that I necessarily believe all these things I just don't understand the "need" for creative copyrights to be released earlier. Don't people have a right to their own property whether it's intellectual or more tangible?
ReplyDeleteI think it is disturbing that they ignore the Fair Use Doctrine and corporate interests should be looked at very closely before they are allowed to influence schools. On a side note am hopeful for the next generation. Sure they might be taught this in schools but they will see that the internet is based around Fair Use and the restrictive rules of copyright will probably looked down upon (sort of like how they are now).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about public domain I think about my hometown library: somewhat stuffy with a strange damp smell, poorly lit, and all the books look like they've propped up a table for their whole lives. Is this just me?
ReplyDeleteI think the time should be diminished a bit more to match the life of the author or corporate timeline but a decrease to 25-50 years would really be non-beneficial to young authors or creators that by 20 have already done something copyright worthy. Its definitely a hard task in decided the right amount of time before it becomes publicly usable.
ReplyDelete