EU Commissioner Proposes 95 year Copyright 591
Albanach writes "The European Union Commissioner for the Internal Market has today proposed extending the copyright term for musical recordings to 95 years. He also wishes to investigate options for new levies on blank discs, data storage and music and video players to compensate artists and copyright holders for 'legal copying when listeners burn an extra version of an album to play one at home and one in the car ... People are living longer and 50 years of copyright protection no longer give lifetime income to artists who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties, he said.'"
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, if you're so poor at managing money that you can't leverage 50 years of income into a retirement account, you're an idiot.
Why is it none of the music or movie folks seem to have heard of a 401k or IRA or equivalent, anyway?
EuroDisney (Score:2, Insightful)
Two important questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) What's the difference between burning a second copy of a CD FOR MYSELF and carrying that original CD between my house and my car with me? Because one used my hand and one used a computer?
The stupid. It burns. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever that Commissioner is, I propose we all sack him. With extreme prejudice, if you see what I mean...
OK, this being said, anyone ready to open a petition against this stooopid copyright extension?
one-hit musicians only? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Self defeating (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont mind lifelong copyrights... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
They are going away though, like the inevitable decay of all putrid matter. Mmm. Putrid.
Since when do artists deserve (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't get a lifetime income based on most work I did so many years ago. Neither do others.
The purpose of copyright was to give an incentive to produce and publish material -- and have society benefit both by initially recieving it and then getting it in public domain. Enforcement costs money (police, courts, etcetera), so this time-limited monopoly was a fair arrangement.
But by no means was it to guarantee an income for life. That seems a little too much for just any random creative work when others have to make a day to day living. Not that I believe "it's for the poor starving artists!" line anyway.
Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oblivious to the actual economics (Score:2, Insightful)
How many works are there that are over 14 years old, still generating royalties, and have not made enough money for the creator that they can comfortably retire for the next 95 years?
Re:Two important questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, the laws of supply and demand eventually kicks in. The heirs of the folks who wrote Ragtime tunes probably wouldn't be seeing a whole lot of royalty income right now. In fact, I think Disney, Inc. and perhaps a handful of others are the only ones I've seen who are capable of zombifying their old stuff and still make some money off of it.
Given the mass of dreck we see nowadays, the incentive for the sognwriter would be to keep them thar royalty checks not only coming in, but to continually make stuff that gets attention. Sure, things have (in many genres) gotten to the point where it's 'all rehash all the time', but it all has a limited shelf life.
As for #2, I agree with you. The whole point there is a greed-play by corporations who can't stand the thought that their business model isn't quite keeping up with evolution.
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)
There, FYP for you.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright needs to be a balance. A good creator needs to be rewarded well enough that they can make more creating than doing something else, but not so well that they just stop. I remember Terry Pratchett saying (possibly quoting someone else) 'when you stop writing, you aren't an author, you're just some guy who wrote a book once.' The copyright system should reward authors, not guys who wrote a book once (and I say this as a guy who wrote a book once).
Lifetime income? (Score:5, Insightful)
When does everyone else get to have lifetime income too? And this only includes productions that were recorded way back when. There is nothing stopping said artist from re-recording a newer version of that hit song (best of...) that will have the same copyright protections.
Why do artists and government officials think that Copyright means 'money for forever?'
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, does anyone here honestly believe this has anything at all to do with the actual artists? If someone recorded hits in their teens or twenties, I highly doubt they'll be relying on the pathetic residuals their label deigns to pay them to stay out of the poor house.
The record companies just don't want to give up their revenue on oldies--music from 1958 and prior is now lapsing into the public domain in Europe. This is music from the birth of rock and roll, i.e. Chuck Berry (who still performs at concerts, mind you!), Elvis, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, and loads more. These are classics that people are still buying new CDs of, putting on their iPods, etc. Chuck's not gonna wind up on the streets because Johnny B. Good can be downloaded legally for free, but the record company still wants their cut. *THAT'S* what this is really all about.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, there are many at slashdot who want to abolish copyright entirely. I think there would be far fewer of these folks if copyrights were sanely limited.
I don't know about Europe, but here in the US we're not supposed to have lifetime copyrights. In fact, our Constitution specifies copyrights and patents are to get artists to create in order that the public domain be enriched, and that they should last "a limited time." SCOTUS fucktards, ignoring the plain language the Constitution was written in, have ruled that "limited" means whatever Congress wants it to mean.
Since all US laws are based on the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is ignoring it, I choose to ignore all the other God damned laws they write and to hell with them.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Re:Self defeating (Score:4, Insightful)
Gradually, this deal has been skewed more and more in my favour (w00t). The problem is, 100% of the bargaining power is on the side of society as a whole. If I don't like the copyright terms, what can I do? Stop writing and get a real job? Wow, that would suck.
Let's look at what society really gets. Limited rights immediately? Well, kind of. Unfortunately, unscrupulous copyright holders are trying to take these away with DRM. Since governments haven't done the sensible thing, and made DRM and copyright an either-or proposition, society as a whole gets screwed and loses these short-term benefits. Well, what about the long term? They still get the works falling into the public domain, right? Well, in theory. Pop songs that were hits when my parents were at school are still under copyright. Stuff that written when my grandparents (who are all dead now) were at school is now falling into the public domain though...
Eventually, the population is going to wake up and say 'wait a second, we aren't getting anything out of this.' Eventually? Well, the last poll I saw said that around 90% of the population infringed copyright on a regular basis, so 'eventually' really means 'now.' How long does it take for something that 90% of the population think is morally acceptable to get legalised? If we, as copyright holders, don't start proposing reasonable compromises, it won't be long before the population starts to realise that copyright only exists because they agree to enforce it and decide that a fairer deal is not to enforce it at all. If that happens, then there's really not a huge amount we can do.
And we hear it again... (Score:1, Insightful)
Quite difficult when you then assert you own the copyright of the dead artist...
Please remember, if copyright ends, your ability to extract more money than the marginal cost of production ends too, so there's VERY LITTLE MONEY in uncopyrighted works.
See that old
And it would behoove the company that bought the artists' work to commercialise to keep them alive, since if the artist dies too soon, they won't be able to get their money back from copyright leveraged prices.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Album sales are the sole source of income for many bands that don't tour. Lots of bands and artists that rely on heavy studio production can't effectively take their show on the road and live on album sales alone.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fifty years is more than long enough, but that should be whether the artist is alive or not.
Re:I agree! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll just reiterate: there's nothing special about what an artist creates. An artist either fills a supply niche with material for which there is demand, or they're just doing intellectual masturbation. And yes, I'm dead serious with that statement.
This means that if an artist can't find a buyer, they don't deserve an income. Now, there's indeed the wrinkle of near-free unlimited distribution of digital copies of their work. Sell your song or painting to one person, and everyone in the world has access to the digital copy. Here are the options to deal with this: make sure that the first sale of the song compensates you for the work you put into it, or get enough people to pay for it to provide enough aggregate compensation. The simplest solution for this is still the tried and true live performance. You can't copy it, because then it wouldn't be live. You can easily calculate how much you need to charge to make a living.
That said, I can live with a certain amount of copyright law. This will make it easier for artists to create income and won't make the creation of art into a rat race of who can copy whose popular work the best. Personally, I'd like to see it be as long as a patent: 20 years. If 20 years is enough time to recoup investment in creating new technology, it is enough time to recoup investment in creating new art. Also, I don't think that copyright should end with the death of the artist. I'm sure there are enough people out there who aren't above killing someone to be able to freely copy and perform a piece of art. Not having the death provision in there will remove an incentive for killing. It's true that it's already illegal to kill someone, but it also doesn't mean we have to give killers a reason to kill.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
- Artist does work
- This costs productivity / resources
- Artist gets paid for work by money generated from productivit
- Amount of productivity / resources paid to artist doubles productivity exerted by Artist
- Every time the artist gets paid for this work, productivity and resources are being poured into a black hole. Nothing is being created. Resources are being wasted.
This is just bad economics. In short, people are laboring, and that labor benefits just one person. We can only afford to buy so much art. As the pool of available art increases, the budget for this does not. So we have less available for new works. It's time to free up those resources to put artists to work!
Short copyright terms discourage independent music (Score:2, Insightful)
Sound backwards?
There are many artists who labor in obscurity for years before gaining recognition. Small musicians that slowly build up careers over time will be hurt by short copyrights. Major labels that can afford to aggressively promote their wares will not be as hurt because they will make most of their money in the first few months anyway.
It will not be to the public's benefit to have every author, musician and artist immediately selling their rights to their work to corporations instead of holding on to them.
A blanket reduction of copyright terms is a blunt instrument.The problems of copyright can be more effectively be resolved by reducing the copyright terms of works that are out-of-print and are no longer actively being sold. 90 percent of copyrighted works are out-of-print and collecting dust. If the copyright holders can't be bothered to release them, these works should revert to public domain. This would resolve the orphaned culture problem without discouraging independent art and music.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
But copyright no longer expires, so
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
More importantly, why should an artist be compensated when I burn my spreadsheets to a blank CD?
The stupid assumption is that the blank media will be used to store music only. A levy on "data storage" makes no sense at all.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a CD from an artist, is he losing money because you transfer them to your Ipod?
I thought that by buying the CD you were buying a license to listen to the song, regardless of the media. I don't see why an artist should care how I listen to what I paid for.
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Since all US laws are based on the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is ignoring it, I choose to ignore all the other God damned laws they write and to hell with them." Two wrongs do not make a right.
It's called civil disobedience, and when governments lose all moral standing it can be the right thing to do.
The Worst Sin Of All Here (Score:3, Insightful)
More than anything else to stand up against is: NO EXTENSIONS OF EXISTING COPYRIGHT TERMS!
Agreed (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should artists receive lifetime compensation for whatever they created as teenagers? I'm not getting paid for the work I did 5 years ago even though it is still being used by a growing number of people.
Artists should be compensated for the work they are currently doing, not for the work they did in decades past.
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Since all US laws are based on the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is ignoring it, I choose to ignore all the other God damned laws they write and to hell with them." Two wrongs do not make a right.
It's called civil disobedience, and when governments lose all moral standing it can be the right thing to do.
Maybe. But very few people are willing to go to jail to fight for the right to share MP3s.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are copyrights even held by the musicians nowadays (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe many of us have heard of the example where John Fogerty was sued for sounding like himself, because "The Old Man Down The Road" sounds so much like his songs "Run Through The Jungle" and "Green River" during his Creedence Clearwater Revival years. Obviously, if you can be sued for making songs that sound like songs you previously wrote yourself, then obviously the cry for compensating musicians in this case is a red herring. Granted, this is Europe rather than the USA, but the political motivations are the same on both sides of the pond and the industry is pushing for international standardization for copyright laws. The real reason they want to extend copyright is so that the record labels can squeeze more money out of classic songs.
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If they don't (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you can earn a living. Except you need to do it pretty often. As in, I need to go to work almost every weekday to earn my living. Why should an musician be done their "job" after one song?
That's a straw man, because the reality is that they aren't. Even casting scumsucking middlemen (record labels etc) aside, you can't just make a song and have done. It has to be performed and promoted, and that is why people choose to buy a cd or tickets to their concerts. If they don't deserve your money I guess you are not buying their CD. But don't pretend it's not work just because it is different from the kind of work you might do.
I'm surprised that slashdot, being as thick as it is with people who claim to be artists of a sort (they write code for a living) and therefore make money directly as a result of the copyright law structure would argue that we should throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. Maybe because most of the people answering are not coders or are schmoes who only produce "works for hire" and therefore do not directly benefit from residuals. But if the residuals were not there for the company you have signed the copyright for your program over to; that is, if they were not allowed to sell your work for money, they would have no money to pay you. Furthermore the opportunity is there if you manage to create something in an unencumbered environment (no big corp gets to claim they own your work) YOU might be able to make some money off of those continuing sales. Either way though you are getting paid specifically because there is value to what you produced that people are willing to pay money for. If there was no copyright at all, they would not need to pay you, or worse it would be easier for other people to make money off your work while you get nothing.
The IP laws need serious overhaul. But let's not get carried away here. There does need to be a structure to allow creators of intellectual work to be paid else it's back to the cotton fields for all of us.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole purpose of the copyright is to ensure progress, not individual riches.
If anything, with the rate of progress being so much higher today than it was back when copyrights first were instated, it would make sense to make current copyrights shorter than what they were back then. Say 5 years. That would ensure that the artists would get a good source of income while working on their next production, and even be allowed to fail once or twice. And it would prevent them from resting on their laurels, which doesn't exactly enrich the world.
And, quite frankly, this isn't about the artist anymore. Since copyrights unfortunately aren't unalienable rights, but goods that can be sold (even before the creation happens!), the real beneficiaries of copyright extensions are big companies who don't create anything, just make money on other people creating.
If nobody were allowed to sell the rights to their creation, only enter short term distribution agreements, then artists wouldn't have to sell their rights in order to make money, because they would not compete with others able and willing to do so. They would be free to switch to a higher bidder or better marketer, a freedom which in itself would cause an increase in worth for their product. But they would have to keep on producing, or eventually the income would drain up.
Regards,
--
*Art
Don't fall for it (Score:1, Insightful)
This is about specific large businesses wanting to make even more money off of talented artists.
If it was illegal to sell a copyright or otherwise to surrender all or part of the money one makes off of one's own copyright, (thus protecting artists from exploitation by their labels) you would not see such a strong push for extensions and heavy-handed enforcement.
Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold rules.
Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. There is, speaking generally of creative works, a very high chance long term you will be paid nothing. There is also a very small chance long term you will make alot of money.
Everyone seems to focus on superstar musicians or writers when they think of royalties and copyright. They are the extreme on the bell curve.
Think of what happens for an average writer or musician. He creates a creative work, and somehow manages to sell a little bit of it continuously for the rest of his life (through royalties, direct selling, whatever). The money trickles in, and if he manages to make enough creative works that he can sell, eventually he can make a living at it with a trickle from each successful work, and begins to write full time.
Removing long term royalties would make this next to impossible for writers. Most writers would have to continue working at least part time jobs while getting a trickle of income from their newest works. That is not in the interest of the public at large, when the artist could be creating mildly successful works of creativity full time.
14 years is much too short. 95 years is generally much too long. It should be set up in terms of the author's life, plus a small bit of time past that (5 years, maybe), so the elderly can successfully be published. That would provide incentives for artists to produce a lifetime of work while limiting the chance that creative works will be lost in time.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of people who make their own CD and bootleg copies of it to make a living for example. Technobrega in Brazil is a great example of that. You're disputing how Much people should be paid for it, not if they should or not.
People are paid for their work in a variety of fashions. You could sell it anywhere. The key word there is in some form you have to sell your music. Just because you made it in the past doesn't entitle you to be paid for it in the future unless you figure out how to sell it.
The intent of copyright is to create a reason for innovation. When you have no financial incentive to create more things, where are you to say that there is innovation?
When a DJ wants to mix your song but can't because you won't give him rights (or even royalties, or not enough royalties), are you "protecting your rights" or stifling innovation?
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I've seen this argument used in similar threads a few times and it really bugs me. It completely reduces the art of songwriting/composing to the physical process, which is admittedly easier than ever. However, that does not mean that the ENTIRE process is easy. Recording the song(s) is fairly easy. Writing the songs is hard. I am a composer/musician and I assure you, the writing is the hard part. In the same way that buying paint, brushes and canvas is easy yet creating a masterpiece is difficult.
Re:Sweet! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
A more modern band may not tour for several reasons. Perhaps they don't gig because he lives in New Zealand, the singer's in London, and the guitarist lives in LA. To make a track, each musician lays down a track and FTPs it to their server, where the next guy downloads it to add his part. Should they be denied the right to make money for their music?
Another example is one or two guys hanging out in a basement studio who lay down six or seven instruments worth of music. Yeah, they could go on tour and play their one or two instruments live while flying in the rest, but I'd feel robbed if that's what I saw for a $20 dollar ticket. Plus, many audiences want to see same band live as they hear on the CD. They could take the huge financial risk of hiring a band, teaching them the music, quitting their day jobs, and doing everything live, but why not just sell the CDs, keep their day jobs, and make enough money to cover the cost of the studio?
Another example is a supergroup or a collaboration where the various members only have enough availability to be in the same place at the same time for one week to create the album, then they have to go to their regular bands.
There is no shortage of reasons that a band may not tour.
I'm not talking about a 95 year copyright being reasonable (it's not), but to say that a band should make all its money by gigging is ridiculous.
Re:Sweet! For them! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem on buying a song if I like it. The royalties should go to the artists, but they don't. A major portion of them go into the RIAA or to pay for managers, sound tech's and others who work on the production. I have no problem with that either, a days work for a days pay.
The problem that I have with this is when you purchase a song in the stores, you buy it on some type of media, LP, CD, cassette tape or others. I pay the royalty to the artist for the right to listen to that song on. The artist gets paid for their work. If I have the technology to move that song over from 8 track tape to CD's and I can listen to it, then why should I pay the recording companies and the artist royalties once again? I should pay for the first type of media and as long as I do not want another version of that song on different media that is professionally produced, re-edited and mixed, then I should not have to pay for it once again.
My complaint is that if I have the technology to write my own media from the media that I already own legally, then I should be able to and not get threatened with jail for doing it. If I want to pay someone else for a better version, then I should pay for it.
But the recording companies should drop this BS about how it hurts the artists. It threatens the executives in the recording companies and everyone else that work there.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
First, price and cost are two unrelated things. As an example, diamonds cost a whole lot more than they cost to extract from the earth. And there are some things that are priced only slightly more than they cost to produce, otherwise nobody could sell it at a profit (ignoring loss leaders here). So yes, it is hard to create music (cost), but the market doesn't price it that high. Part of the reason the market doesn't price it much is because recording costs are practically nil. That might seem a contradiction, but what I'm really saying is that copies are so easy to make, that they become an infinite good. You cannot create a business around infinite goods alone. You have to sell something other than the copy, because copies are so easy to come by.
Second, price and value are totally separate beasts. As an example, air is invaluable to humans, but a business would have a hard time making money by selling it because it is so abundant. Again, because copies of music are infinite goods, prices come down. The value is still the same. That is, no one values music less just because it's easy to copy, they just get it free.
That is why the only way to make money off of albums is to try to control it with the threat of law and DRM. The problem though is DRM doesn't stop piracy, but instead annoys paying customers[1]. And copyright law is becoming so ludicrous (including what some copyright holders are doing to enforce it) that people no longer have respect for that law.
Artists have to realize that. This is really a business model issue. Somebody above asked what happens if the musician didn't want to tour or the live performance didn't fit their music. They have several options. They can decide not to make their music, they can make their music and release it to the world for free, they can try to control it with DRM or threat of law (as mentioned above, this isn't looking all that good), or they can find other ways to make a profit from it (perhaps commissioned work, or have performances where they introduce each prerecorded piece). The first option doesn't get anywhere, the second option might not make any money but may get them recognition for a job making music (say for movies or operas or something), the third option is what a lot are doing now, but the fourth option can make them money.
[1]I watched Spider-Man 3 the other day and I swear there were at least three copyright notices before I started to watch the movie. That is just stupid. Copyright infringers (which are the people making copies to sell or give away) aren't going to pay attention to it, and are probably going to not copy that part anyway.
Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? It certainly is not in the law book. What you - and a lot of others in this thread - do, is attributing a reason to the law and then attacking that reason.
You might as well state that, as most laws, copright law is a moral law. When somebody makes a chair, it is fair that he'd be paid for that. When somebody cuts your hair, it is fair that he'd be paid for that. When somebody teaches you a course, it is fair that he'd be paid for that. When somebody makes the music that you listen to, it is fair that he'd be paid for that.
The fact that you cannot 'copy' the chair, and as such either have to pay for it (considered morally right) or steal it (considered morally wrong) does not make it morally right to copy the music without payment. You see, you try to double negate your morals here: when it is not stealing (because they product is still there) it is ![morally wrong] so it must be [morally right]. I'm sorry, but that is not how morality works.
Come on, who want to pay for _any_ product? You only pay for products because you _have_ to pay. Nobody wants to pay for gasoline, but it makes people feel bad when they nick it from the neigbours car, that is why they fork over the money for it.
Oh yes it does. The fact that I rented out my house for 50 years or so, doesn't give you any right to squat it. The fact that I sold my music for 50 years or so, doesn't give you any right to copy it. You know, you can look at this copright expiration date from another point of view as well: because we consider eternal copyright (where copyright would be passed along in the family, like real estate) immoral and impractical, copyright has an expiration date. But the question is not how _early_ to set this expiration date (because we all want everything for free) but how _late_ (because we find it morally right to compensate people for their work). That's why this European commissionar wants to expand copright to 95 years.
Ok, that does is it: hand me over your pay check NOW. You now, it is for the better of humanity. The more financial incentive you have to work the next months, they better we all will be. What a load of bollocks! Who are you to tell people how to innovate? Mr. creative genius himself? You know, having a steady flow of income from past music/inventions/etc. might just give people the time and freedom to do innovative stuff. Or do they have to fill in multiple forms for subsidies at your governmental office, stating in advance what they are going to innovate?
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, how many people here expect to be able to design a and then sit back for the rest of their lives receiving money for it? You get paid for your time, and then you get given the next project. You stop working, you stop getting paid.
Disclaimer: I am a non-recording (hobby) musician.
Perpetual Copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole discussion really points to the question of how do artists make a living? I mean, artists of all genres and media are creators of unique, valuable stuff. But I think the real issue is this:
No, the real issue is that the vast majority of art is not outstanding. That is, there are tens of millions of people the world over who could produce something as good. Ie: if you're not producing outstanding art, your work simply isn't worth much, because everyone knows at least one person who can do it just as well.
Being a really well marketed ditch digger, still doesn't make you anything more than a ditch digger.
(The same applies to all you "programming is creative" types. Yes, a small proportion of programming is "art". However, most of it isn't, and the average "software engineer" is the IT equivalent of a bricklayer.)
Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not necessarily true, it's just not "how things are done". As many
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
But the reality is that copyright helps people earn livings.
But that's not a good enough reason. I mean, if you merely wanted to give money to authors, why not just dole it out, or give them a big tax break or something? Copyright is meant to serve the public interest, not to help authors. It just happens to help authors as a means to an end. It's not written in stone that we have to do it at all, though, or that the current laws are the best ones.
What if we could reduce copyright, thus yielding a great benefit to the public in terms of more freedom with regard to works, but without significantly reducing how much money most artists make? Wouldn't that be great? Well, we can do it, because current copyright law is so very far out of whack.