Copyright Length: How Long is Too Long?

Argument:  While the exact length copyrights should apply is arguable, it should not extend past the life of the author.

In the Unites States the current length copyright applies is 70 years after the death of the author.  This length was established with the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, which extended copyright 20 years longer than the previous extension.

The following video discusses some of the history and issues surrounding copyright extension:

Why it shouldn't extend:

• Shouldn't benefit beyond author: Obviously, authors can no longer benefit from works after they are dead, so why should others benefit from a creators specific work?   There is a strong individualistic bent in America that would suggest that you should earn money off of your own work. That is part of the justification of the 50% estate tax.

• Main beneficiaries are often companies: Often the primary beneficiary of copyright after the death of creators is their company.  It's one thing if a creators children benefit, but does everybody that now works at the Walt Disney company really have a right to profit from and control a cartoon Walt Disney made in 1928?  

• It would encourage new works: When works go into public domain, others are able to use those works to create new works and derivatives.

• Follow Constitution: The U.S. Constitution authorized copyright " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".  Some advocate extending copyright to "forever less a day" in order to technically circumvent the Constitutional requirement of a "limited time".  If you are circumventing constitutional requirements on technicallities, you are probably not following the spirit of the law, in this case the promotion of works.

Why it should extend:

• Economic benefit in foreign markets: The proponents of the most recent extension said one of the primary reasons for the expansion was to promote profitability of American works in foreign markets.

• Encourage creation of new works:  On a basic level, copyright still encourages the creation of new works by ensuring the rights of the creators.

• Preserves the value of works:  Some said that the extension preserved the value of works by ensuring that creators could controlling the distribution of works ( the supply) and keep the market from become oversaturated and the value of the work dropping.

• Copyright doesn't discourage creation:  Proponents of copyright extension point out that only certain expressions can be copyrighted, but not the ideas therein.  So potential creators can still draw inspiration from copyrighted works.

Discussion:

Essentially, those that make money off of specific works want to keep making money. As it turns out it's often corporations and companies that can spend a great deal of resources to lobby for the extension of copyright.  On the flip side, people that could potentially benefit from works becoming public domain either a.) don't know they could benefit and/or b) don't have the resources to lobby congress.  So it's a safe bet that copyright will keep being extended like it always has.

But there is a line somewhere.  People and corporations don't have the right to benefit of of specific works in perpetuity.  If they did, either the Constitution would have ensure that or and of the congresses since then would have.  I feel we have already crossed the line between encouraging the creation of new works by allowing the profitability of the author through control of their works and grarifying those who unjustly profit off of the work of others, to the detriment of society.