Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Politics of Piracy (Kevin Gorman and Katie Gilmore)/Timeline/3/archive

Question 1: Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

I do think the interests of the public should be served by copyright law, or any intellectual property laws for that matter, but not necessarily what the public wants. This is because, like the Constitution, I believe societal progress is the ultimate goal of government, and progress is driven by new ideas and technologies, but the public as a whole may not always know what it should want to optimize progress for the long term, for example by focusing on media for leisure and entertainment rather than as a way to develop new processes to serve each other. We should gauge the utility to and want of the public by both interpreting standard laws of economics, supply and demand, to shift levels of copyright protection, and by testing the effect of different levels of copyright protection on economic growth, social happiness, etc. However, modern government has had a particularly bad track record of infringing and restricting the freedoms and rights of the public, so it would be preferable to error on the side of protecting the rights of the public, and by extension, in general, what the public wants.TiantongQ (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question #2 Response
Berry and Stallman both suggest that copyright was historically intended as a limited bargain between society and those who create creative content, as a way to encourage the production of such works - and explicitly not as a form of ownership or as moral right. Assuming for now that Berry and Stallman are correct - how should the historical origins of copyright effect modern-day discussions of such?

There are numerous rules, laws, and regulations that cannot remain in their original form in light of modern day events and advances. Additionally, many of these policies do not translate perfectly from theory/paper to practice/reality. Copyright is no exception, and although its original intentions may have been relevant at the time and designed with thoughtfulness, much has changed even in the last decade. Therefore, the historical origins of copyright should have a very limited and perhaps even no barring to modern day discussions about copyright. Nobody could have imagined the issues that have arisen with copyright at the original creation of the policies as things were different back then. Now, with technology developing at an unprecedented exponential rate, copyright of “intellectual property” has become a huge issue/debate with concerns ranging from money, to laws, to freedoms, and even morals. One of the key players is the internet, a fairly new creation that is rapidly expanding/developing and currently has little regulation and no clear owner. With such new technologies, factors, and information, the historical origins of copyright may be hindering modern day discussions with outdated and irrelevant policies and information. Perhaps designing new current laws altogether might prove more useful than major amendments of outdated ones. Ecalifano (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

-Edward Califano

Response to Question 2
Copyright laws were originally intended to increase the flow of information, to ease the access of knowledge. This, as both Berry and Stallman have suggested, is the historical origin of copyright law, for which the general idea should be maintained to present day. Being that rapid advances in technology have greatly accelerated this transferral of knowledge, the archaic laws have been brought into question. However, regardless of the nature of how the information is transmitted, this old laws should remain the bar to which all present and future copyright laws are enacted. Like Berry has stated, new copyright policies have only restricted the public's access to their desired information. In any case, people are still going to find ways to get the information they want, whether it be by sharing or pirating. Why shouldn't the US government get on board and allow that transferral of information, rather than feebly try to stall the inevitable? Phister44 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Question 1 Response
As Stallman explains in his piece "Misinterpreting Copyright", the process of determining the length of time which an individual (or company) should have exclusive control over their product is a "trade off" between their rights and the liberties & freedoms of the public. I believe the phrase the "public deserves to get what it wants" is a very dangerous way of phrasing the ideal level of copyright protection in the United States because it goes against some of the founding principles of our country. One central tenet of our Constitution is protecting the rights of a minority against the majority's will. I do agree with the idea presented by Stallman that recent extensions to the copyright law have less to do with encouraging the creation of new material and more to do with safeguarding profits from outside competition, but at the same time there must be some incentive to bring new goods and ideas to the world. I agree with the proposal presented by Stallman that rather than basing the length on what best suits the desires of the public, we should experiment starting with a 10 year copyright law and determine whether copyright owners are severely disadvantaged in the marketplace from profiting off their ideas with this reduced period and how the public responds to this increase of material in the public domain. I also agree with the idea that different types of material may need differing lengths of protection. By experimenting with the optimal level of copyright protection, we can determine at what point someone has been justly compensated for their contributions to society and it should enter the public domain. Dhlws11 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
I agree with Stallman that the public should get what it wants because by copyrighting information and hiding it from the public, it hinders the spread and advancement of knowledge. Allowing unlimited access does not hinder the person who created the copyrighted information in any way but it can open a lot of paths for people who might need this information. On the other hand, companies or people using this copyrighted information for any kind of profit should not be included in the public, because it would hinder advancement in science. Companies would lose a lot of the incentive for developing new technologies simply because they would not be able to profit from it as much if other companies could just reproduce what they spent so much money on to research. Despite this, I think public institutions such as universities would continue their research and gain a greater benefit from getting unlimited access to any information they want. Williamlee948 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My train of thought for this question was pretty much covered by this posting so I thought i'd just respond to this reply instead. I also agree with Stallman that the public should get what it wants as any work that merits a copyright was more or less created with the public in mind, therefore the public should have free and open access to it for private use. Also as the exchange of information is so critical in further enhancing science and technology, public institutions such as universities should have unlimited access to any and all data. However private companies who would use this information for a profit should be restricted in gaining access to it as they in turn will limit the people's access to it and will corner the market solely for those who will pay for it. This exclusion will in turn go against the original reason for copyright laws which was to increase the flow of information and and to make the access to knowledge easier. Ramona1f (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Ramona1f

Question 1 Response
I agree that the public should get what it wants because ultimately, any works created by a creator are made with the public in mind; they are meant to be FOR the public to be exposed to. In developing copyright law, anything that would subvert consideration of the public would be irrational. It is the purpose of copyright law to encourage a creator to keep on producing his works, but I have a hard time seeing how free and open access would at all discourage the creator. Rather, wide access to his works would potentially elicit a strong response (positive or negative) from the public, even encouraging the public to develop their own works with original creator's works in mind. I agree with the first response that in order to gauge the want of the public, one route would be through the trends of today's economics (e.g. supply and demand). Additionally, with current technology, it is much easier to identify the preferences of the public. Social outlets like Facebook and Twitter provide at least some answers to a particular demographic's want. By keeping the public in mind, we at least honor the creator's audience to his works. Mathew.chow (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Question 2 Response
Stallman proposes that copyrights were created " to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more." Berry quotes the Unites States Constitution: Both authors testify to the fact that copyrights were created so that people would be willing to create. Both Berry and Stallman also agree that copyrights shouldn't be an explicit form of ownership over material. Assuming berry and Stallman were correct, modern day discussions about copyright laws would be centered around the argument that copyrights certainly should exist (as opposed to the "free culture" we read about in last week's readings). However, it would also be argued that the copyrights should only exist within certain limitations. Berry makes this point very clearly in his piece. He believed the creator's hold on his copyright is too lengthy and defeats the constitutional purpose of copyrights (purely to encourage creation and innovation). Stallman makes a point that copyrights should not only benefit the creator, but also the readers and users of the contents. Without limitations on these copyrights, the benefits only go to the creator and not the users. -Julie Ai Luu Julieluu (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response for Question 2
I agree strongly with Stallman's viewpoint that the public "deserves to get what it wants," in questions of copyright law. The belief that copyright exists to promote progress as our constitution says is unconvincing to me. I believe that copyright law may spur some creativity but the bulk of new material of any sort that surfaces is not due to the fact that copyrights existed on other products, but simply because a strong entrepreneurial mindset exists in many people of this country. Initially the view in the Constitution that copyright exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," may have proven true, but as we progress and move forward it may even be hindering the creativity of those looking to improve something but can't because it may be illegal because of copyright. As we move forward I believe the laws surrounding copyright must change or eventually they will be hindering the very creativity they are attempting to promote. Christianwiens (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Christianwiens

Question 1 response
Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

I think "deserves to get what it wants" is too extreme. Take the music industry for example. If the public wanted absolutely no copyright protection on these works, and the freedom to distribute these works at will, the artists lose money. When that happens, what's the incentive to make anymore music? Yes, they could do it out of sheer enjoyment, but if it doesnt make them any money, then i'd be willing to bet they will spend a lot more of their time on other things that would support their lifestyles and less time on making music, out of fear of being broke. If they spend less time on making more music, then this isn't advancing creative works, it's hindering it. So in short, I don't think the public "deserves to get what it wants", as it's too extreme of a scenario. Iguerreroucb (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

I believe that it is important to have a fair balance between what the public deserves and what the publisher deserves. You cannot give absolute power to the publisher as this will give them unwarranted powers. I like the example Stallman gives with the E-books. Some E-books have taken away previous powers that paper books had. It made me a little mad when I read that some E-books only let you read a book a limited number of times. On the other hand though, you cannot take everything away from the publisher. In my opinion, the most important purpose of a copyright, is to give incentives for publishers to create unique work. I really like Stallman's proposal of shortening the copyright lengths to where the incentive to create is still there. In my opinion, his lengths might be a little short like in his software proposal of 3 years. I think his first proposal of 10 years for every form and giving 20+ years for the more expensive creations like movies or medical research is fair. Of course, this will require a lot of researching and analyzing to perfect. Oliverb91 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
The phrase "deserves to get what it wants" is a bit of a tricky one. While I do believe that the public should be put first in regards to issues of copyright I inherently dislike the phrasing used here. The public should be obligated freedoms in regards to copyright laws as Stallman says and his arguments for shortening the length of copyright seem fair, especially in regards to computer programs. While authors freely give their copyright rights away to publishers, it seems that the copyright itself has little input into the actual production of creative works. The publishing companies do have right to profit as this allows for the distribution of said creative works but, as Stallman argues, they survived before their increased copyright powers and there is no reason to assume they would not continue to do so now without those powers. The idea that it is illegal to let friends borrow a copy of a creative work from you is simply farcical as it seems impossible to enforce and would brand every member of the public a criminal. The idea of 'balance' as a misnomer of the purpose of copyright which is then used to inhibit the freedoms of the public is, for me at least, a striking argument and I do believe that the public should have more say and more sway on copyright issues. How to gauge the want of the public seems to be fairly simple at face value, simply take into consideration the widespread infringment of digital copyright that seems to always be one step ahead of the industries desperately trying to shut it down. Creative works are being freely distributed on a huge scale, to take steps to protect the public from frivolous industry lawsuits and promote freedom of creativity and expression just seems like common sense. OneMadRabbit (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
I do not think "the public deserves to get what it wants" is a good standard for developing copyright; rather I think copyright should be developed based on the idea that "the public deserves to get what it pays for." Stallman's argument rests far too heavily upon this idea of public entitlement to creative property; and he defends this idea of entitlement by citing the Constitution's rhetoric as evidence that copyright law is intended solely for the public good. Stallman argues that the benefit of the publishers are just the "means" to the "end" of satisfying the public good, but he does not weigh into consideration the government's economic goals in establishing copyright law. I agree with Stallman that the satisfaction of the public is important, but even more important is the employment of millions of creative American workers whose livelihood is protected by copyright law. Stallman fails to account for the fact that writers and artists are part of the public themselves and their rights must be protected as well. Finally, what the public "wants" is not always what is best for a given society. The public may desire free goods because that would be optimal for them, but self-interested maximizing behavior such as this disregards the collective good of society as a whole. Wedell30 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

= Response to everyone who answered Question #1 = I have an extremely hard time when it comes to copyright infringement. From what I read above with everyone's responses was that everyone thinks that the public should get what they want. Well what about the artists? What do the artists want? Are they getting what they want if copyright laws are made shorter and the public gets what it wants. If intellectual property is made public and accessable then wouldn't the industries crumble around them? Then what? I happen to be a musician what has spent quite a bit of time recording and doing business in Nashville and have seen first hand just how strict copyright laws are. For instance, my own music. The reason I do not rip music off the internet is because I would hate for someone to do that to me. I put my self in the shoes of other artists who would feel the exact same way. It costs the artists money. Now maybe I am going off hand here in relation to the readings but as far as I am concerned if we were to always go with what the public wanted who knows where our country would be for the public doesnt always know what it wants and the wants of the public change so drastically and so periodically it would be insane to "give them what they want." I think both authors fail to take into consideration the side of the authors, and only consider the public. Yes the public deserves to be entertained, but they should pay for it. Rebecca Kavanaugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofangels (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
“The public deserves to get what they want” is an interesting approach to copyright law and has some merit at least because the members of the public are the consumers of the product. Art, literature, etc. are to some extent catered towards the needs and preferences of the public, in addition to the creative expression of the artist, due to the basic concepts of supply and demand. There is a delicate balance between giving the public what they are entitled to and deserve without compromising the efforts of the producer. However, the addendum to this sentence is possibly that the public deserves to get what they want, otherwise they will take what they want, which is the case with piracy and infringement. I do think there are many blanket assumptions within the original statement that need to be examined rather than taking it at face value as a standard for copyright law. What the “public” (which is hard to define) wants is not necessarily the best standard to use when constructing a legal framework for anything. I think there must be some sort of compromise between producers, given the advancement of technology and the inherent inevitability of sharing content, and consumers, keeping in mind the costs to the producer to create content. This could possibly be gauged by public surveying or any method that provides more input for various sides. Nityadb (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

= Response to Question 1 = I am concerned with what the article's suggestions means for intellectual property in general. Patents and copyrights are both protected in the same way under US Constitution and the relationship between all things sold are not alike. Even those who detest our current medical system cannot deny the effect that patent law has on drug creation. The money to innovate would not be there and many of the gifted people who chose to study things like biology, chemistry, etc. could very well choose to pursue other interests. I use the term intellectual property because that is the term we currently use to apply to protecting a wide variety of intangible "property."

Additionally, he cites the problem of "publishers." If the public had free reign to copy material there would not be nearly as many publishers there, because the money would dry up. This would either mean that artists individually represent themselves, or that we see far fewer artists because they are filtered through far fewer publishers. Either way the distribution power of that artists is lost. If they are representing themselves, they must come up with all of their capital and they are now competing on a playing field where everyone is "signed" akin to 500 men trying to fit through a door. The inverse, with only a few publishers is just as bad, given that there are far fewer people doing the job of publishing, those who could find mass appeal through publishing may not find someone. Additionally, if an artist were to represent themselves they would find little profit in their work if they did not own it.

That is just playing devil's advocate, of course. Clearly, there needs to be some semblance of protection, or first rights, or whatever - he just wants to see it minimized from it's current status. I am more concerned with the implementation of these ideas, stylistically separating works for different engagement under the law or permitting occasional distribution. The more minutia you invite, the more complications that can arise later when it comes to arguing the meaning of the law and the exceptions to it. PopeFeldman (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question #2
If Berry and Stallman were both correct in their general assumptions that creative content historically is less about ownership and more about encouraging creative works, it ought to redefine the way that we view copyright today. In our current era, the laws of copyright are becoming more and more restrictive, forcing users to jump through hoops even to access information. Our laws need to be changed to reflect the old views of creative encouragement. Having some rights will help people to benefit from their work, but by severely limiting how long those rights can last, the public will also benefit, because free access allows people to not only grow in knowledge but to also build upon that previous information. That allows both extended creativity in the eyes of the original producer (incentive), and creativity for the user of the information. This change could be effectively implemented through a reduction in the number of years that a copyright can be held. As Stallman pointed out in the reading, most copyright's lose effectiveness within 5 to 10 years and become no longer profitable. This change could hardly affect what the publishers say they fear so much.. Public Domain. Alexandertyler (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)alexandertyler

Question#2 response
Today’s copy right law become more strictly from the day of original copyright law was established. I feel that today’s copyright law make limitation rather than make progressive. I don’t think that people should stick on the origin of the law because the situation continues to stream and become different from the origin. However, I assume that people should respect the original concept of the copyright law: “To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts.” I enjoy creating art work as my work. I don’t feel good if people copy my work ignoring my efforts that I did. However this is true that all of my works borrowed information from others; my identity and abilities even exist because of other existences. Important things to use others ideas and works are respect, consideration, and appreciation toward those who provide the origin. Today’s problems in the field of copyright are about manners rather than rules. Therefore, I suggest that people need to focus on how we can educate people who can have consideration toward original creators rather than focus on how we should make limit toward copyright. Original copyright should effect today’s restriction to think how can people pursuit happiness with its law. Akiko Yoshida 128.32.77.20 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Akikoy (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
While it may be easy and popular to consider that the public "deserves to get what it wants," this becomes quickly problematic. What someone deserves and what someone wants is difficult to gauge in the short and long term for a number of reasons. Using the word deserve implies having done something before hand which is where the problem of copyright lies. The public did nothing to produce the product in question, and thus, it is hard to justify a claim that they deserve whatever it is they want. Stallman's argument seems based around the concept that copyright law is a curb on the public's freedom to ensure a body politic that encourages innovation. I think that he is correct in this idea, but I think his idea falls apart when he claims that this somehow gives one a right to access this material without cost.

A better way to determine copyright restrictions revolves around identifying an appropriate cost for access. This gives creators of content the capability to control who and what they give out and at what cost. This will only work, though, if the market can be given a chance to get off the floor and illegal and free file sharing sites are repressed as much as possible.

-Jacob Portnoff

Question 1 Response
As Stallman mentioned that "society deserves to get what it wants" is not by most means a good way to adjust copyright laws. Society not only includes the consumers, but also the sellers. The point of view that Stallman uses by saying that society should get what it wants will almost never please everyone. I can see that most people may be happier with not having so many copyright laws, but then it would also have negative consequences on those who came up with original ideas and not being able to claim them as their original ideas. In my opinion, being able to protect ones ideas is a good system, but however stealing ideas should also not be a very harsh punishment. It should instead be noticed that the idea wasn't theirs and that they cannot pass it off as their own. A better way in measuring this will always be challenging when trying to monitor a large group of people and making sure that they are following all of the rules. Enforcing the law when it comes up would probably be the best way to go about copyright issues, rather than increasing the punishment- in hopes that it will prevent it from happening.

-Daniel Mariche Dmariche (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to question 1
Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

If the public were to simply get what it wanted all the time, the author's rewards for creating artistic material would be incredibly diminished. How could the author/publisher possibly benefit from everyone taking what they wanted so easily without cost? Perhaps a work's popularity could be enough of an advantage to the author but honestly, money runs our society and the author should receive some monetary benefit, rather than just a pat on the back. This is why I disagree with Stallman when he says, "The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers." Publishers are just as important as the consumer. Without them the consumer wouldn't have anything to want. Stallman also says "...there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from additional privilege." What's wrong with that? There are all sorts of costs that go into producing a work for mass consumption, so why shouldn't the author or publisher get a little something back for putting it out there? I guess I can really see where Rebecca (Voiceofangels) is coming from. The public "deserving" to get what it wants is not a good standard to use in developing copyright. I'm not sure what would be a better metric, but I do know that it would really cripple an artist's creative process if they had to worry all the time about not getting paid for what they put out. Not getting paid would lead to having not enough money to produce more.

"Governments must never put the publishers' interests on a par with the public's freedom." - I think there are freedoms we must give up in order to progress the creation of original artistic works!

Sheilawesome (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 2
Berry and Stallman both suggest that copyright was historically intended as a limited bargain between society and those who create creative content, as a way to encourage the production of such works - and explicitly not as a form of ownership or as moral right. Assuming for now that Berry and Stallman are correct - how should the historical origins of copyright effect modern-day discussions of such?

Berry and Stallman insist that copyrights are a way of encouraging innovation, but this doesn't seem to hold true for current motivations for copyright laws. Most entities promote stronger copyright laws not for others to develop new ideas, but rather for protection of their own ideas. Although the constitution attempted to create ownership of intellectual property as an incentive for creative works, most individuals in the present choose to interpret this ownership as a given right that must be protected for their own purposes. For example, according to Berry, publishers push for copyright laws to protect their ownership of an author's material in order to protect profits. This was not the intention of implementing ownership rights. Therefore, with the idea that ownership of material is not guaranteed, individuals in the present would believe that the only way to acquire protection of their works would be to create unique works for copyrights to hold. Minjinl (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Question 1 Response
Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

The government needs to take into consideration many factors including public and private interests for developing copyright law. Since the copyright was originally intended to promote science and art in the US, this fundamental principle should not be comprised by granting excessive legal protection to copyright holders. While it is true largely incentivized to create new work if they can profit from it, they should not do so to the expense of the public good. It seems that copyright today has erred in favor of strong individual rights and as a result many copyright holders seem to be only motivated by money rather than contributing to the public good. Ddalton22 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 1
Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

I think that Stallman's suggestion is not necessarily the best standard to develop copyright. I think that the public can also abuse the copyrights if they are given everything they desire. A better standard would be to balance both the public's wants and the independent desires of an author's distribution. For example, with Radiohead's album In Rainbows, the band wanted to distribute their work to the public and let them choose its worth. Many small independent bands I know of do this same thing to distribute their music; websites provide a download link next to a "Donate" link. I think this is a decent way to establish copyrights. Stallman talks about the balance of what the publishers and the public desire, though this does not always work as a publisher will work harder to make money as opposed to distribute material. SwungNinth (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

question 1
As far as the question whether or not the public should get what they want i think that it would be better to ask should they get what they deserve; in my opinion this being a much more free and broad access to previously copyrighted material and immunity from unreasonable prosecution as a result of sharing information. It seems to me after reading these articles regarding the original intentions of copyright law in the United States that this has been abused for so long and in such an outrageous fashion that the public has taken it for granted that these laws are not only counter productive, but also at their core, oppressive. In many societies people become accustomed to practices or beliefs that seem to defy logic and our perception of publishers rights in this country is no different. Our culture is deeply engrained with capitalistic values that lend themselves to a number of inane and foolish quandaries such as: What about the rights of the wealthy? What about the rights of corporations to hold copyright to things created by men that have been dead for half a century? and so on...  The public deserves these rights, even if most people don't notice they are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.132.55 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 2
Berry and Stallman both suggest that copyright was historically intended as a limited bargain between society and those who create creative content, as a way to encourage the production of such works - and explicitly not as a form of ownership or as moral right. Assuming for now that Berry and Stallman are correct - how should the historical origins of copyright effect modern-day discussions of such?

The historical origins of copyright should not affect modern-day discussions of what copyright ought to be. Berry points out that copyright is mentioned in the Constitution as a mechanism designed to promote the arts and sciences and thus only granted exclusivity for a maximum of 28 years. Allowing copyright laws to grant exclusivity for life plus 70 years might be different than what the Constitution intended, but the letter of the law can't be followed blindly. As judicial activists argue, there must be some flexibility in reading law because the writers could not have predicted the rapid changes in technology and society at large. In fact, there are many instances in which the Constitution is either ambiguous or completely unable to pass judgement.

In trying to determine what copyright laws ought to be, we should consider whether weaker copyright laws would in fact stifle progress. It is hard to argue that individuals would choose not to create new content if the exclusivity period was shortened from life plus 70 years to a much shorter period of time. As long as there is ample time to take advantage of the exclusivity, individuals would continue to have an incentive to create content. On the other hand, however, shortening copyright exclusivity would decrease the value of content since cash flows would be guaranteed only for a limited number of years, rather than to perpetuity. Gauravgupta.cal (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Question 2
Berry and Stallman both suggest that copyright was historically intended as a limited bargain between society and those who create creative content, as a way to encourage the production of such works - and explicitly not as a form of ownership or as moral right. Assuming for now that Berry and Stallman are correct - how should the historical origins of copyright effect modern-day discussions of such?

I think the historical origins of copyright, where copyright was meant to be a limited bargain, between society and the authors who created the creative content, can still be used as a broad model or modern-day discussion. As times have changed, though, the this idea of copyright must also be modified to fit the modern society. Nowadays, as Barry mentioned, technology is a lot more advanced and many more technological advancements have become more readily available. Thus, this should be taken into account when discussing modern-day copyright. In the historical model, the limited bargain was to encourage the production of creative works. While that is still our goal in modern society, we cannot simply rely on the historical model. With increasingly advanced technology, publishers and authors have sought to extend copyrights as a form of ownership nowadays, but in my opinion, that does not encourage production, but instead can encourage piracy. Thus, I think the historical model is helpful in creating a guideline, but by no means fits our modern society perfectly as new advancements are made.Ellentu (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Qn 2 Response
If Berry and Stallman are correct, then there should be some system in place to take account of the general public's needs and desires. For example, just like media companies lobby government to pass laws that benefit them, citizens that represent the common voice should have an input. There is almost a Catch-22 situation at play here, as companies devote vast amounts of time and money into protecting their copyrighted work from copying. If some or all restrictions were lifted, the 'Progress of science' (in this case, anti-copying software) would surely be diminished, although in a slightly different field. Another compounding factor is that most of today's media necessitates a much larger investment than in days past. It is no wonder that companies would spend more resources trying to protect their works. However, for progress to take effect, work needs to be disseminated to a wider audience, ie. through libraries. It is easy to keep track of how much sales a product generates for a company; it is far harder to try to quantify how illegal copying, or lack thereof, affects the 'Progress of science and useful Arts'.

Rapyture (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)