Are U.S. Copyright Terms Too Long?

by Sam Dean - Apr. 09, 2010Comments (2)

The Economist is out with an interesting discussion on copyrights, dubbed "Copyright and Wrong," which which is very relevant to open technology development. It calls for significantly shorter terms for ownership of copyright, and puts the blame for current copyright problems on "the entertainment industry's lawyears and lobbyists." Could shorter copyright terms lead to more open content, art and intellectual property? Definitely.

In 2008, the European Union lobbied to extend copyrights to 45 years for performers, in order to guarantee income to aging artists. At the time, Matt Asay compared the idea to what goes on in the U.S.:

"Every few years the US extends copyright terms because Disney lobbies the heck out of Congress' weak-kneed legislators to prevent Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. After pilfering the commons for the basis of much of its revenue (Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and even, perhaps, Mickey Mouse), Disney keeps going back to the congressional well to ensure its God-given right to make money on old intellectual property forever and ever."

In the U.S., though, copyright holders get 95 years of protection due to a law passed in 1998--50 more years than the extension that the EU was proposing. According to The Economist:

"A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable. If there is a case for longer terms, they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not locked up automatically."

Without a doubt, that would be a good thing for open technology development. It would make far more content and art available, and it would fall much more in line with how copyrights are handled in other parts of the world.