To simplify the arguments:
Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests.
Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention.
That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.
Eh, I don't think you'll hear much talk about artists when the copyright lobbyists meet with our elected representatives. More likely, you'll hear this: copyrights are an important source of revenue for a major part of the US economy. We need stronger copyrights to protect that revenue stream. The only time people talk about artists is when they are appealing to the general public's moral sentiments.
"Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention."
It depends on who you ask. People in the anti-copyright crowd (like myself) are not all united on what should change. RMS has said that copyright can be good e.g. when applied in the way that the GPL applies it, or that it can be bad, so the system should be reformed to ensure that GPL-style application is promoted (or GFDL for written documents, or creative commons, etc.). My view is that copyright was made obsolete by the development of PCs and global computer networks, and that a new system must be developed to ensure that artists are paid, that scientists can publish papers, and that the utility of PCs and the Internet must be legally protected (e.g. we must ensure that we, the general public, have access to computers that are not restricted or designed to fight us, and we must ensure that we continue to have access to a global communication network that makes no distinction between the nodes connected to it). There are some who want to create a complete anarchy, where copying is entirely unregulated -- where no system for ensuring access to creative works exists.
"It's all high level creation issues"
That is not really true. Copyright is about you, even if you do not personally do the sort of work that copyrights cover. Copyright is about your ability to access human knowledge; it is about your right to sing "Happy Birthday;" it is about your continued access to things like the Internet, and ensuring that the Internet does not degenerate into a cable TV network (which is a system designed with copyrights in mind). The combination of PCs and the Internet has the potential to upend copyrights and completely change the way in which knowledge and entertainment spread, having an impact as broad and lasting as the printing press (which was the reason copyright was first created) or as writing itself (which forever changed the way information was passed from generation to generation). Human civilization is made possible by communication, and copyrights are about communication; if you do not care about copyrights today, you will eventually be forced to care, should copyright law continue its outrageous expansion (and there is no reason to think the expansion will stop any time soon).
Pro current or longer copyright terms: I made something, it's mine, I should be able to control it. Forever. Forever minus 1 day, to make it "limited times".
Opposing current or longer copyright terms: We (society) make deals with artists to incentivize the creation of works. Current copyright terms for most works, life + 70 years for works by individuals or 95 years for corporations, are 70-130[1] and 81 years, respectively, longer than necessary to incentivize the creation of new works.
I assume that 14 years is plenty of time, perhaps one 14 year extension should be allowed. 14+14 years was the original copyright term in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
Or any internet-based petition for that matter.
We need to stop this nonsense already. Copyright is not an incentive for scientists, it is a burden.
There's probably more that needs to change than just the length of copyright terms. Registration should perhaps be required to get copyright.
I don't know if having copyright at all is a net benefit. Whatever is best, it might be something to approach in several steps and not all at once. Maybe we could get all scientific papers in the public domain at the same time, though.
My point is that we have a legal system in place now that protects and promotes the existence of a publishing system that is grossly out of date, and that we have a chance to do better (and to abolish the old system).
Happy Brthday shows the problems with the system. A killer law review article titled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" traces how a Happy Birthday to You started out life as Good Morning to All a song with the same melody but different words, written as a classroom greeting by two teachers in the 1890's is still under copyright. It's one of the best things I read in 2012 and readable by a non lawyer. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm
The first copyright law in the english language, the Statute of Anne from 1710 had a term of 14 years renewable for another 14 years. Under those terms things like StarWars would be entering the public domain, which given where it is in culture and the profits lucas has seen sound about right.
Going to 10 years would mean that most authors/comic book creators would NEVER see movie option money and film studios wouldn't
The other issue with our current copyright law is lost works: works where the rightsholder can no longer be found or even identified. This should be changed vis a vis copyright registration - register a work and after the copyright expires it is published freely online in a digital fashion.
But seriously, I think HN must have a keyword bump, namely for U.S./Copyright/Show HN. It also probably has a few elite sites that rank high, like the Atlantic, and Tech Crunch. That or because it was voted up twice in new within it's first minute of being posted, which resulted in the front page, which only exacerbates the process.
"Current copyright terms are much longer than necessary for promoting progress. Excessive copyright terms limit the usefulness of the works they cover without leading to the creation of more works.
"I ask the government to limit copyright terms to a maximum of 10 years with no exceptions. Compared to current copyright terms 10 years may sound very short, but 10 years is a long time; it may still be too long. I also ask that currently active copyright terms all end within 10 years.
"It is not society's duty to reward authors and artists for their creativity or hard work. Copyright should only exist as an incentive. The excessive monopoly terms must end."
This is a typical doofus petition to the White House in that the author has not even done the elementary research work of looking up the clause in the federal Constitution about copyright:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . 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."
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 clause 8
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html
The best way to appeal to Congress (which has the authority on this issue, NOT the President) to change copyright law is to lean hard on the "limited time" language from the Constitution as well as point to real-world examples of places with shorter copyright terms (where?) with beneficial effects for the national economies of those places. Look for empirical examples when arguing about public policy.
Note that the United States Supreme Court has already interpreted the "limited time" language from the Constitution broadly enough to allow the current,
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US 186 (2003).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1214768485224110...
long copyright terms in United States law (which was adapted to European law in this regard during my lifetime). Copyright terms in the United States used to be relatively short compared to those in most other countries with modern copyright laws, perhaps because of the constitutional language. But appealing to the constitutional language would be part of the task of persuading Congress to change the current law.
