Do you think there should be limits on how far Copyright can go?

[Banana Jelly]

This thread is inspired by the Intellectual Property thread.

I will try to get into the debate later after reading your opinions. Thanks.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

without you posting examples of what exactly you mean how are we supposed to know what you mean by "going to far"?

[Banana Jelly]

What should be taken out of the DMCA (Copyright law), and what should be brought in. How far it can limit people from copying others work, to how far it can limit the downloading of ones work.

[roy34543]

Well I think copyright law in the US is decent in principle, but it can go on for too long. Many people can get copyrights of over 70 years.
This is justified in some cases, like with a book perhaps, but with things like medical drugs and technological patents I think it should be reduced to 25 years and possibly even 10 years if its considered that the benefit of dropping the copyright would be enermous.
I also think that governments should reserve the right to buy out patents at a reasonable cost if neccasary, but only if human lives hinge upon them.

[Banana Jelly]

Well I think copyright law in the US is decent in principle, but it can go on for too long. Many people can get copyrights of over 70 years.
This is justified in some cases, like with a book perhaps, but with things like medical drugs and technological patents I think it should be reduced to 25 years and possibly even 10 years if its considered that the benefit of dropping the copyright would be enermous.
I also think that governments should reserve the right to buy out patents at a reasonable cost if neccasary, but only if human lives hinge upon them.

I believe a reasonable amount of time copyright should last is at least 5 years and at most 10 years. After that any profit you would ever make would be gone in a massive percent. 70 years is what I would call unreasonable. You wouldn't even get to use it, if its 70 years. The amount of fines in the DMCA is also un-reasonable. 150,000 per copyright is outrageous. I think it should be decreased to at most 50,000.

[Othniel]

I believe a reasonable amount of time copyright should last is at least 5 years and at most 10 years. After that any profit you would ever make would be gone in a massive percent. 70 years is what I would call unreasonable. You wouldn't even get to use it, if its 70 years. The amount of fines in the DMCA is also un-reasonable. 150,000 per copyright is outrageous. I think it should be decreased to at most 50,000.

Length of copyright is life of the author + 70 years (and longer terms for anonymous/pseudonymous works and works for hire). Under US law, the second you write something down, you can get copyright protection for it (it has to be original and fixed in some form - written, on your computer, etc). You should register your copyright because it's easier to enforce (registration is prima facie evidence of a valid copyright) and can potentially give you better remedies in the case of a suit. I am in favor of the long term. There are just way too many problems for short-term copyright protection. In the case of authors (or movie makers) who create something, and only have 5-10 years of protection, that can play havoc with any plans they may have to make sequels as the characters will no longer be protected (someone else could make that sequel). Also, it may take years to recoup costs of writing the book, making the movie, etc.

The biggest reasons for long copyright protection is that authors need enough time to make a living as full-time writers, and to provide them with motivation to write for the public.

As for what I'd consider the best length of time for copyright protection? I don't have any definitive number, but say around 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is longer.