Hello people, I'm back with another thread. I would like to share my thoughts on copyright. You can share your thoughts on copyright on this thread as well. Anyways, here are my thoughts on copyright. I do think whoever invented copyright had good intentions. Copyright is basically meant to stop stuff like piracy and things that are similar to that. However, I feel copyright has been all jacked up. Why? Okay, first off. Copyright protections (at least for music) last up to 70+ years. I think a 50-year copyright would be better. A 50 year copyright would benefit the author for half a century. Avril Lavigne is 35 years old (as of me writing this). If she stopped making music today. She would still make profit off of it until she was 85 years old. People could also use music that is between 50 and 60 years old that is in the public domain. I think a 50-year copyright would benefit both society and the artist. I am aware that a 50 year copyright may not benefit an artist as much as a 70+ year copyright would, but a 70+ year copyright may be too extreme and too long. I'm sure there are artists who would be just fine with a 50 year copyright. A 60 year copyright may not be the best idea, but It wouldn't be as extreme as a 70+ year copyright. I'm sure that there are works that are over 60 years old that should to go into the public domain. Second, the law and companies like WMG (Warner Music Group), Viacom, FOX, etc have caused many problems for fair use reviewers. Now, I am aware that fair use is a case by case thing, but I feel like it's unfair for someone to get their song review, album review, and Top [insert number here] list of music taken down on YouTube by a company like WMG or UMG all because they used 5 to 10 seconds of a song for review purposes or countdown bumper for their list. You can argue that the music reviewer needed to get permission to use the song, but I do not think they have to if they are only using a few seconds of the music to back up their claims about the music that they are reviewing. Also, the artist may not give the reviewer permission to criticize their music especially if it's an artist like Taylor Swift who really doesn't like criticism. As for cartoon reviews. I do not like the fact that companies like Fox and Viacom are taking down fair use reviews of cartoons. Now, I do not understand why cartoon reviewers show clips of characters talking, but I do not think they deserve to get their reviews of cartoons taken down even if they are making money, not getting permission, or not saying "I don't own this" or "all credit goes to the copyright owner". As long as they are actually reviewing the show, talking over the footage, and not claiming it as their own, I don't think they should get their reviews taken down. That said, I do think uploading unedited full TV show episodes and songs/albums, plagiarizing them, and making money off them is wrong and it's exactly what copyright is meant to stop. As far as car name copyright and artists getting offended over their music getting played at rallies, I think at least some it can be silly sometimes. I can't go into the rally stuff due to the "no politics" rule on here. I could go into the car name stuff, but this thread is already long enough as is. You can share your thoughts on copyright below.
By the way, I just want to make it clear that I do not support piracy, people making money, and claiming other people's works as their own. That is wrong.
