I quite agree. Correctly applied copyright engenders, fosters and nurtures creativity.
I am dimly aware of some research being made into the area, suggesting that 15 years was optimal for both creator and consumer.
Deciding on a timeline for limiting copyright is very difficult. I think one thing that hasn't been sufficiently justified is
why there should be a limit.
I mean, if I create something, it's mine, period. By what logic should anyone else
ever have free access to it without my permission or the permission of my descendants? If I build a house it doesn't suddenly become the local council's property after a certain time. It remains in my family forever, or until someone bequeaths it to someone outside the family.
The problem lies in the fact that while copyright is in theory protection of the
physical expression of an idea, in practice you're really protecting the idea itself.
If I write a poem, it's not the physical paper and ink, or the digital data of the text file that is protected, but the actual words themselves - the specific sequential alignment of words, evoking specific images, ideas, and emotions.
The problem is, for work that is mass-distributed, the individual physical copy is not where the value lies, but in the multitude of distribution. Each individual copy is itself not worth a whole lot - making it affordable to many people. This means mass access, but it also means you need to sell a lot of copies to make any money off it.
As such, copyright protection has to extend a long time in order for any decent amount of money to be recovered.
If you take a fifteen year protection period... an artist might create something of incredible worth at age 20, and thus has protection until 35 - and for those 15 years they can exploit their work without interference. But what happens if the work isn't recognised as having value, or isn't popular, until
twenty years after it was created? The artist gets nothing. More importantly, if companies interested in exploiting the work know it will become available for free in fifteen years, why would they offer to give the artist huge sums now to acquire rights? They'll just wait until it's no longer protected.
Here then, is the basic crux of my personal argument, as an artist.
1. Commercial exploitation of a work should be a right retained by the artist and their heirs for all time. No one should ever be able to make money off your efforts, without giving you and your descendants something for it.
2. Copyright should not be able to be transferred to ownership of a corporation or company. Publishing companies should only ever be able to acquire a "lease" that gives them permission to commercially exploit a work for a restricted period of time. Ownership should be retained by the artist. This would avoid ridiculous situations that have occurred in the past such as record companies suing artists for plagiarizing their own work. The current situation, where Copyright is something used by corporations to exploit artists and their work and punish their fans, is precisely the sort of situation that copyright law was introduced to avoid.
3. Personal copying should be treated totally differently to commercial exploitation. A person who has purchased a work should be allowed to copy it as much as they want for personal use, and the time period during which non-commercial copying is prohibited should be limited to the artist's lifetime.
Punishment for violating copyright should be reflective of this approach. Just like drug-dealing (ha!), two separate infractions should exist; possession of a copy, and distribution of a copy. Distribution should only be punished if done for profit, and the fines should be harsh.
The whole idea is to make it financially more viable to acquire the rights legally than to simply make copies without permission.
Someone distributing not-for-profit should only be punished for possession of a copy, and the fine should only ever amount to the accepted commercial value of the individual copy.
