Should copyright laws be abolished?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Should copyright laws be abolished?

This poll is about your opinion.

This poll was inspired by the following link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4603194

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. No, but reduced to longer of a flat 25 years or life of author

[ixion]

4. Yeah, something along those lines would be acceptable...

[frazzled]

6. It should be longer than the life of the author

My husband, for example, is co-executor to the estate of an artist who died in the 1980s. The artist's wife maintains all rights and is also co-executor. It is really important that those who were close to the artist or author during their lifetimes continue to shepherd the proper uses of the materials left behind for a certain period, so that they are not misused for the wrong purposes or put into the wrong contexts. This has nothing to do with money, but rather finding the right places of the work and protecting it from misuses. This honest to god happens.

Think about a painter who has labored over his images for a lifetime and held passionate ideas about its purpose. What if the day he dies, Absolut Vodka decides it can just use his work on the label for a bottle of booze? Say Bruce Springsteen drops dead tomorrow and Sarah Palin decides she can use one of his songs as her theme song for a presidential run? Minimally, copyright should be held by one generation of descendents.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. You presume a right to control that I strongly disagree with

I do not think these families have a right to control context or whatever.

And there is no such thing as "misuse" of a work in any sense that could or should interesct with the law.

So we disagree.

[baldguy]

2. Copyright should be held by creators, not a soulless corporation.

Any any punishment for violating copyright should be in line with the actual damages done.

The case in the link fit neither of these.

[Hissyspit]

3. Copyright laws don't have to favor corporations and disfavor the Founder's concept

of the marketplace of ideas.

There are other options besides abolishing them completely.

[msongs]

5. this case is excessive; however, copyright serves a useful purpose & is misunderstood...

for example, fair use: fair use means you taped your old vinyl LP and made a copy for your workshop and garage where a record player was not likely to be. Fair use did not mean make a copy and give it to 14 million of your closest friends. :-) As for record companies versus artists, that is another complete issue. This woman's fine is ridiculously out of proportion to any wrongdoing under the law. Generally speaking, people who are making money off of someone's else's copy rights should kick in a share as royalties. Most of these file sharing sites are making money off of this in some way, or they wouldn't be able to stay in action.

[Zephie]

8. Distribution of intellectual property should be based on the artists wants, not a corporations

case and point: my favorite artist, Amanda Palmer, actually encourages people to take her work and distribute it because she believes art should be free for all to appreciate. Her corporate overlords flipped out on her for it and she went on a crusade to get dropped by her label and won - and is now more popular than ever before. The reactions of artists based on their responses to piracy really tells their audiences what they (the artists) think of the people who pay their bills. I'm happy to pay Amanda, because she obviously does what she does based on love of the art - not needing a diamond encrusted airplane.

Edited to add: Often at Ms. Palmer's concerts they'll pass around a hat/box after the shows and fans donate to help her produce her music. It's been reported on many occasions that they've made more money from freely given donations by the fans than the actual ticket costs of the show that night.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. IP laws should be reformed

Music downloading is not exactly a good test case for any of the positions.

--d!

[CommonSensePLZ]

10. They should be re-defined IMO

Me listening to the latest Alicia Keys song on Youtube shouldn't be considered stealing. I'm not claiming it as my own, once I stop listening to it, that's it, I'm not profiting off of it or hoarding it in my possession like a stolen painting or physical property, and a song has been released to public people how are people violating intellectual rights just be listening to audio? If it was bootlegging where the artist isn't getting a cut from their own creation maybe that's a different thing.

It's music, it was made to be listened to, some bands actually profit from it because word of mouth often expands their fan base, especially underground artists. I think in this day and age of technology and information it's unreasonable to try to stop someone listening to a song in all ways except what the artist or their agent would want.

I respect copyright laws in that I think a person deserves credit for their contribution and that they can be used as a legacy for family and descendants a lifetime later, I think that's fair, but as for so-called "piracy" I think it's ridiculous personally from what I know.

Sorry only discussing one type of copyright issue here.