As a distance educator, what do you think about the duration of the length of copyright granted in the United States versus the interests of the public? Would your conclusion differ if you were the holder of a lucrative copyright? Discuss your opinion about the duration of copyright.
Hello there,
I must confess that this week’s readings were quite engrossing and humorous. I caught myself laughing every now and then as I read the heated debates on copyright duration. Needless to say, it is still a very pertinent matter in the rights environment. So, without further ado, let’s get to the meat of the matter! Copyright duration is seemingly a controversial matter in various societal circles. There are those who adamantly support the duration of copyright which is the life of the author plus 70 years after their death. Several people in the creative industry like artists, musicians, and filmmakers argue that copyright limits and the length help the creative economy to thrive. Particularly, Jack Valenti, a chief lobbyist representing the film industry strongly believed “that a lack of copyright protection and fears of piracy threaten the survival of the entertainment industry” (as cited in Washington Post, 2003, para. 15). Meanwhile, supporters like the Walt Disney Company have been championing the cause of copyright extension for the past few decades. On the other hand, others contest copyright limits and suppose that it should be limitless. Judge Alex Kozinski (n.d.) nicely stated that “Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity requires a rich public domain...Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture” (as cited in Lessig, 2007, p. 2). Other opponents share similar sentiments arguing that the duration is essentially a disservice to the public as it can hinder progress in various aspects of a society and pose significant cost burdens to creators while just a few benefit from the financial remunerations.
Interestingly, the notion put forward regarding the public good and their interests evokes the utilitarian principle. Essentially, it is a philosophy that speaks to the betterment or benefit of the majority or society. As such, I can imagine utilitarians arguing against copyright extension if it means that only a few will reap the benefits. Now having explored both sides of the argument, I can see myself being both a proponent and an opponent of this pertinent conundrum. For me, it really boils down to my motives and the main reason for producing works. If, for example, I produced a piece for monetary gains, then as a copyright holder, I would definitely lobby for and be in favor of copyright extensions and limits. However, if my motive for producing works was for the sole purpose of contributing to the advancement and growth of my field, and society by extension, then I would argue against the copyright duration. In this case, I would want other creatives and/or creators to use my work for free or to have open access to my work with the hope that it will inspire them to create something better than what I produced. I would still at least like to get credit for my work as I am a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. Interestingly, this reminds me of interviews that I have done with creatives in the past. I would always ask my interviewees where they got their inspiration from to produce their piece or what inspired them. In some cases, they credited the works of founding fathers in their industry or the works of others in their field.
As it stands, I honestly feel like the works that people produce are symbolic of their legacy and mark that they leave in the world. However, the public should still be able to benefit from the work that was produced without incurring costs. They should also be able to build on that legacy or continue it by using it as a guide or source of inspiration to create their own works. This is essentially my verdict on the duration of copyright granted in the United States.
What are your thoughts on my verdict?
I eagerly await your feedback!
Krista
MDE student
University of Maryland Global Campus
University of Maryland Global Campus | UMGC
References
Washington Post. (2003). Eldred v. Ashcroft: A Primer. TechNews.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/technology/articles/eldredprimer_100902.htm
Lessig, L. (2007). Against perpetual copyright. The Wayback Machine. http://web.archive.org/web/20080807190157/http://wiki.lessig.org/Agai nst_perpetual_copyright