The Primary Goal of Copyright Law
The primary goal of copyright law is not only to protect the rights of writers and creators of original works, but also to advance practical arts and technology, which is information. To achieve this goal, the owners of copyright must enable the writers or creators by granting them a conditional monopoly over exclusive rights for a set period of time. As a result, the monopoly should be temporary in order to prevent situations in which the laws can interfere with the public's interests.
The Need for Shortened Copyrights
Such priorities include the need to promote the development of new intellectual and artistic works, as well as the public's right to use portions of such works for charitable or educational purposes. Therefore, copyright laws should not be extended further but rather should be shortened.
Limited Copyright Duration
Notably, copyright laws cannot be eliminated because they protect the works of creative and innovative individuals, authors, and artists. Nevertheless, it is necessary to put limitations on the number of years that such rights should only benefit the owners of the works. Mickey Mouse has continuously changed the duration of protections and still attempts to have additional years of protections (Depoorter, 2004). Disney does not look into the ways it hurts the public since the protection only helps in retaining its monopoly power in part of the industry. If Mickey Mouse ever entered the public domain, some individuals would be in positions to use it as logos for their newly built phones, sell its arts without a series of legal formulations, and use their photos to do paintings. As a result, the public will benefit through the creation of new and unique materials and gain financial support through the sales. Nevertheless, that is not possible due to the continuous extension of Mickey Mouse copyright protections making it not enter the public domain (Depoorter, 2004).
The Adverse Effects of Copyright Extensions
The analysis from the reading shows the adverse effects of continued extension of copyrights. While the families of the owners of such works benefit financially from such protections, there is a loss by the public due to the hindrance created that disallows reinvention and reuse of people's materials. The public should have the ability to use copyrighted materials after their expirations to promote cohesion, cultural practices that would otherwise become forgotten given the restrictions and innovation (Samuelson & Wheatland, 2009).
The Disadvantage of Further Extensions
Extending the terms of copyright is often to the disadvantage of the public since the owners of such works may no longer be in positions to recreate them to fit the new generational requirements while still denying the public chances to use them materials (Samuelson & Wheatland, 2009). As such, the Congress should ensure that there are no further extensions and limit the terms of the duration of an individual's life before it enters the public domain.
The Perpetual Copyright Debate
It is logical for holders of valuable copyrights to lobby for a further extension of the term of copyright, but one important question that should be of essence is whether the lobbyists want a perpetual copyright. Lobbyists pushed for the passage of CTEA in the 1990s and achieved their demands despite a series of issues relating to the law at the expense of the public. Having a perpetual copyright will disadvantage the world and any individual, agency, or lobby groups pushing for more extension should find it hard to go through. The emergence of digital platforms into the lives of members of the public creates a valuable body of legal thinkers, academics, librarians, and consumers who care about the effect of copyright legislations in their lives.
Opposition to Perpetual Extensions
The importance of the copyrighted works to the public is indisputable, and as such, some organizations such as Creative Commons and American Library Association have tried to oppose the perpetual extension of copyright laws. The Congress should therefore not be allowed to extend copyright laws yet again. It is the role of the public to understand how such laws affect them and as a result, look into legal ways to petition the Congress to review the laws. While the Congress may not make the protections perpetual, it has the discretion of extending the terms of the rights to last for longer years. Such extensions may make millions of works that ought to be freely available in the public domain for use by the current as well as future generations of artists and scholars among others to be hidden in the shadow of copyright (Samuelson & Wheatland, 2009). Therefore, such terms should be limited to a period that benefits the public and at the same time does not disadvantage the owners of the materials.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, the fundamental purpose of copyright law is to protect the interests of the creators and authors of real works as well as to promote the progress of useful arts and science, which is knowledge. Therefore, achieving such purpose calls for a limitation of the terms of copyrights.
References
Depoorter, B. (2004). The several lives of mickey mouse: The expanding boundaries of intellectual property law. Va. JL & Tech., 9, 1.
Samuelson, P., & Wheatland, T. (2009). Statutory damages in copyright law: A remedy in need of reform. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 51, 439.
