There should be no such thing as a copyright.
1-20 years after intellectual property is created
21-40 years after intellectual property is created
41-60 years after intellectual property is created
The copyright should last as long as the creator of the intellectual property is still alive
1-20 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
21-40 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
41-60 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
The copyright on the intellectual property should last forever (a perpetual copyright.)
other idea or I do not know(please specify)
But IMO drugs and medical procedures are a special circumstance. One of the drugs that I take is really expensive, which is about all profit since I found out it costs them less then a cent to make each pill. Now I realize that it was difficult to develop the drug but I am paying near 10 bucks a pill. I know that some of the drugs that my mom used to take we similar priced and when the generic came out they went down to less than 20 bucks a month.
So yes there is some type of reform needed, but there are so many factors to hash over I really do not think this conversation has even broke the surface yet.
After talking with some other creative professionals-- men more successful than I've been-- I'm thinking that copyrights should apply for 20 years and that original creators (not corporations) should be able to apply for 20 year extensions for the rest of their natural life with an automatic 20 year extension of all active copyrights at the time of their deaths. This allows sufficient time for original creators and even their heirs to profit from their work, while eliminating orphaned works and indefinite corporate copyrights. This also encourages creators to release works that are no longer generating income for them-- putting them into the public domain sooner-- and ensures that the creators of mega-successes are paid fairly for the value of their work.
The creator should be required to do something with the copyrighted material, not simply invent something and let it sit on a shelf forever. After a set amount of time of inactivity, the material should be public domain;
There should be ways to challenge a copy-write and/or force exceptions on a case by case basis. Sometimes a copy-write may help establish a monopoly, or different people came up with the same idea at the same time unwittingly, or the material serves a public interest which the state has a compelling interest to regulate.
Provided the material never meets a successful challenge and the owner is doing something with it, I see no reason why it should mandatoraly (new word) expire after an arbitrary amount of time.
It's "copyright"; it is literally the right to copy.
The problem with lengthy copyrights is CENSORSHIP. The whole purpose of a patent or a copyright is to grant a TEMPORARY monopoly to encourage creativity and production and then turn it over to the public domain so everybody can use it.
I cannot verify it, but I have heard rumors that the song "Happy Birthday to You" is under a current copyright, even though it was written over 100 years ago and nobody even knows who wrote it; that's why it it is so seldom sung anymore in public places.
How long should a copyright last? No more than about 30 years for anything (novels, for example). But critical fast-developing items like software should be much shorter (no more than 5 or 10 years) There is no rational reason to copyright daily newspapers more than 1 year or monthly magazines more than 5 (A few decades ago, these items were seldom is ever copyrighted).
Piracy should be defined as multiple copying with the willful intent to make a monetary profit, not casual copying for personal use or to show to friends.
People should not be prohibited from downloading videos, music or whatever from the internet as a general rule.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
I think I posted this statement from Pirate's Bay earlier, but it's still relevant:
If people want their works protected, they need to do it themselves instead of crying for government intervention.Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would “do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear”. He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.
Because of Edison’s patents it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North American East Coast. The movie studios therefore relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there were no patents. There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them – like Fantasia, one of Disney’s biggest hits ever.
So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: “stole”) other people’s creative works, without paying for them. They did it in order to make a huge profit. Today, they’re all successful and most of the studios are on the Fortune 500 list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations – it’s all based on being able to re-use other people’s creative works. And today they hold the rights to what other people create. If you want to get something released, you have to abide by their rules. The ones they created after circumventing other people’s rules.
The reason they are always complaining about “pirates” today is simple. We’ve done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow people to have direct communication between each other, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them). It’s all based on the fact that we’re competition. We’ve proven that their existence in their current form is no longer needed. We’re just better than they are.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon
If the lifetime of the creator is any factor in the length of a copyright, then copyright must not be transferable, so that the creator always stays as a human being who actually has a lifespan, instead of a corporation, which is not human.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.