One of the most important protections offered to citizens of the United States are those protections of intellectual property. In discussions of the government’s importance, of its utility and the ways that it best serves its constituents, intellectual protection comes up frequently. The argument is that using copyright law and similar protections, we are assured of ownership over our ideas, creations, and names. As far as I understand copyright law, any original work, be it a song, story, novel, photo, drawing, or video, is automatically copyright and protected from the instant of conception. This protection lasts a duration determined by the law – and this duration has steadily increased throughout the years, with amendments to this law.

            The ultimate motivation, that is, the original impetus of this law was the same as for any and every other law we have: to further and improve the welfare of the citizens of this country. Copyright law is widely seen to do that because it encourages creation; it helps creators make money off of their works, thereby providing incentives and sustenance to those who would add to our culture.

            However, there are many instances when fewer restrictions and more freedoms do better serve the people. The government, at the same time as it protects the rights of the creators, funds and builds thousands of public libraries where the citizens may read books absolutely free. This has been deemed important to our culture. The government understood that the benefit of having all that information freely available to the people far outweighed the possible disincentives to the authors of those books. It is no surprise that one never hears authors complaining about lagging sales due to libraries.

            In fact, despite our legal trends towards stronger and more restrictive copyright law in the last century, our society and culture has moved steadily in the opposite direction. The biggest, latest, and most potent component of this trend is, of course, the internet. Is the law at direct odds to the needs of the citizens? Is it still working in our best interests? We need some history.

            In 1790 the Copyright Act was implemented, for the reasons above. The duration of copyright was limited to fourteen years, with an optional fourteen year renewal.

            In 1831 the Act was revised. The original term was changed to 28 years in order to better match the European laws.

            In 1841 the doctrine of Fair Use was established, whereby a copyrighted work could be used in a new creation, but not to the extent that it diminished the value of the original.

            In 1909 the duration for copyright was extended to 28 years with a renewal of 28 years, and was extended from books to music as well.

            In 1973 the law found that in many medical cases, copyright law could be bypassed to further the more important causes of health and science.

            In 1976, copyright law, which had by this time been extended to more than just books and music, was again extended. The duration was changed to the life of the author plus fifty years. Also in this revision were provisions and exceptions for educational and library uses of copyrighted works.

            In 1992, copyright renewal was made automatic.

            In 1998, the fifty years after the death of the author was changed to 70. Also, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act shored up the law, revised the legal code, and implemented some changes. One of the most controversial concerns the Digital Rights Management that a copyright holder might choose to attach to a digital file. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent this DRM.

            In 2005, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act made it a criminal act to record a movie in a theater. Also, the first attempt to implement a “Broadcast Flag” – DRM for digital television – failed.

            During the above time period, the following technologies have become commonplace and acceptable: player pianos, records, radios, tape recorders, digital recording equipment, VCRs, and photocopying, as well as a few others. Our society takes for granted its ability to copy, share, and access information of all kinds, be it instructional, entertaining, or a mix. More recently, a few technologies have come under fire for their violations of the copyright law, including CD burning and online file-sharing.

            It does seem as if the afore-mentioned technologies are no different from those that are currently under attack in our courts of law. In fact, I have no doubt that eventually these technologies will be as commonplace as tape-recording off of the radio, or with a VCR off of a TV. What I propose, however, is not that these technologies do or do not conform to our copyright law, but that the copyright law has become a monster in our legal system, a weight on our culture, and that it no longer achieves the primary goal of all our laws, all our government. It no longer helps anyone.

            This should be more than obvious. The original duration of fourteen years was considered sufficient at the time, because it seemed unlikely that an artist would benefit greatly from a fourteen year old work. However, by moving that work into the public domain, that is, by letting the people share it, should they want to, the public would be better off. Now, a work that is created is automatically copyrighted, and will remain that way, possibly for almost two centuries.

This accomplishes the opposite of the laws’ original goals. I propound that any extra incentive provided to a creator by the prospective ownership of their work disappears around a certain number of extra years of copyright. For instance, if one were to write a book, and one owned the copyright for 15 years, one would expect sales to slowly decline. After a certain amount of time, an extension of the copyright wouldn’t change one’s attitude towards creation or one’s wealth. The only creators who are greatly affected by the super-long copyright duration are those who create hits – like Mickey Mouse, like Cher and Sonny. They may very well continue to make money for the duration of their lives. However, here I propound that this extension accomplishes the opposite of the law’s original purpose. Instead of encouraging creation and capitalism, the law allows extremely popular creators to rest and retire on the proceeds of their intellectual monopoly. It limits creativity that way, and also by restricting the amount of reuse inherent in a publicly available “hit.”

Which isn’t even to mention the additional 70 years after the death of the creator. Who, exactly, does that benefit? In regards to our copyright law, congress is currently amending more and more, because there are so many problems. Can a work which has no author (they can’t find the author, so no one can pay the author, so no one can use the work) be put in the public domain? Can libraries circumvent obsolete DRM to allow the citizens access to the library material? What about when works with DRM enter the public domain – Will someone have to hack the DRM to allow them actual entrance? Will that person still be liable?

And now, we have the internet. Businesses have always adapted to every change in technology that cracked open their information monopolies. The internet may be the biggest one yet, but it is fundamentally the same. We share files just as we once shared mix tapes. Copyright law is in direct opposition to the success and happiness of this nation’s citizens. Throughout history, information has only become more free. Setbacks aside, this trend will continue. One might even argue that the ultimate goal of life, our culture, and our civilization is the spread of information. For this reason, we must not allow ourselves to be bothered by copyright law. It is antithetical to every advancement of our culture, and it must go.