Copyright protection is arguably one of the most controversial laws in the USA. Over the years, the government has extended the copyright protection laws to safeguard the interests of intellectual property owners. The latest amendment to the copyright laws in 1998 passed albeit opposition from some stakeholders (Thomas, 2013). However, it was not until the implementation of the 1998 law that its negative implications were honestly felt among the people prompting extensive academic research in the area. As the country braces itself for potential changes in copyright law, it is vital to understand the current provisions of the legislation and how it should change in the future.
Intellectual Property
Foremost, it is essential to understand the meaning of intellectual property in the context of copyrights. According to O'Rourke (2016), intellectual property refers to the original works, inventions, or symbols that are recognized and protected under the law. Intangibility is a fundamental characteristic of intellectual property. Copyright is an intellectual property that protects creative works of authorship from use by other parties without the owners’ approval. Two conditions are necessary for the qualification of works into copyrights including originality and intangibility. Copyrights are commonly applied to the following types of works: literary, musical, choreographic, motion pictures, graphic, and pictorial pieces.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Laws Governing Copyright
The USA has comprehensive laws governing copyrights. Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) is a critical legislation that determines the length of the protection term. Enacted in 1998, CTEA extended the period of copyright protection for copyright authorship from 56-75 years, while individual works were extended to 70 years after the death of the author.
Copyrighting works impose significant restrictions on their use within the public domain. According to the law, copyright infringement is illegal; it comprises of reproduction, creating derivative works, distribution, and performing copyrighted works. Contrastingly copyright laws grant the authors several rights including the claim to their work and prevention of the distortion of these materials (O'Rourke, 2016). Moreover, the law provides monetary and injunction remedies to copyright owners against the parties infringing on the applicable legislation.
Extension of Copyright Protection
Undoubtedly, Congress should not extend copyright protection due to several reasons. Foremost, extending copyright protection promotes the interest of big corporations at the expense of the rest of the people in the general population. For instance, Sony Pictures and Disney Corporation, which are the most successful entertainment companies, were behind the creation and enactment of the CTEA. For Disney, CTEA enactment was essential in saving the Mickey Mouse character that is associated with the company, which is also integral in its revenue generation process.
In spite of the above, while protecting Mickey Mouse will preserve Disney’s future, extending copyright protection prevents people from accessing other critical forms of literary works. Due to the CTEA of 1998, the literary works published by individual authors from the 1930s are not freely used in public, and it is difficult to obtain the initial copy: Attempts by Google to trace the owners of these works to get permission to digitize the books have been futile due to lack of proper copyright records in the country. Personally, I would have loved to have digitized copies, but this extent of copyright laws will make that close to impossible. Therefore, extending the law will be highly disadvantageous to the people as it will keep all works of authorship away from the public.
Besides, extending copyright protection is a deliberate act that seeks to protect the interests of authors’ future generations. Copyright law was initially created to protect the financial benefit of original authors and not their heirs. If the law pays special interests to future generations, creative works will be hugely underutilized (Bernaski, 2014). There has been a significant increase in life expectancy of both the author and descendants, therefore meeting the financial needs of both groups would require a significant increase in copyright period. As a result, it would take centuries for the work to fall in the public domain culminating in breach of public trust.
Shortening or Maintaining Copyright Protection
The current patent protection law should be maintained due to several reasons. Foremost, the copyright protection law was created after lengthy discussions between the government and stakeholders affected by the law. The extended terms of copyright protection allow companies to generate commercial benefits from their creations (Bernaski, 2014). Moreover, the companies get an opportunity to build on their existing works and make more profits over the allowable period. Shortening copyright protection will commercially disadvantage corporations, but maintaining the status quo will serve the interest of all the affected stakeholders.
Besides, maintaining the current patent protection period will allow for the regular entry of creative works in the public and enhance effective utilization among the people. For years, people have been denied access to millions of copyrighted works, and releasing them at one time will be overwhelming. Moreover, people will not fully operationalize the creative works. Therefore, maintaining the law will be for the more significant benefit of the public.
Conclusion
From the discussion, it is evident that copyright law will remain a contentious subject in the country. The opposition against the CTEA of 1998 was weak, and proponents of the law had the power to influence the Congress that eventually enacted the legislation. However, there has been extensive scientific research on the impact of lengthening and shortening the law that will prove critical on future discussions. Undoubtedly, the arguments against extending copyright protection are viable, and there is enough justification for why the law should remain without additional changes. However, it remains to be seen how future negotiations will work out.
References
Bernaski, K. R. (2014). Saving Mickey Mouse: The Upcoming Fight FOR Copyright Term Extension In 2018.
O'Rourke, K. W. (2016). 'Let It Go': Disney's New Approach to Copyright Enforcement. Line by Line: A Journal of Beginning Student Writing, 2(2), 8.
Thomas, B. (2013). 15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Will that happen again?. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-o..
