Since When Has Copyright Become Life Plus 343 Years?

from the perpetual-copyright dept

If you follow copyright issues at all, you know that the length of copyright has been extended time and time again, mostly at the behest of entertainment industry interests who are fearful of their content falling into the public domain (even if they used public domain material to create their own content in the first place). However, copyrights do eventually expire, but it seems like fewer and fewer people recognize that. Jim writes in to point out the unfortunate example an IP lawyer discovered recently upon visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Despite the fact that the museum normally allows photographs (as long as there's no flash), it would not allow them in a display of artwork by Nicholas Poussin, who died in 1665. When questioned why the "no photography" rule was in place, he was told that it was because of the "copyright" on the artwork. While this is obviously a minor slip-up by a museum guard, it does show that people are becoming accustomed to the idea that copyright lasts forever, which is a serious problem. The more people understand copyright, and why limits on copyright are important, the more likely we are to start to shift the system away from the ridiculous levels it's reached.

Filed Under: copyright, metropolitan museum of art, nicholas poussin

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Ward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 5:39am

    Copyright protects salaries only!

    Ok, let’s look at the root reason for breaking copyright laws. I will use movie and music industry for an example, since this is where it has all started. Now, why would anyone want to waste time to copy either source? At $15 plus for each title, anyone with math experience can see that they will have spent a fortune on entertainment. I love to be entertained just as much as the next person, don’t get me wrong! I will completely agree that sometimes there is reason to pay a little more for a 'good' show.

    Let’s look at what were actually paying for when we purchase titles. Many multi-million dollar salaries. There is nothing more than just that, salaries. Sure we could break it down into logistics, but that’s minute and we will leave that alone.

    Now from the consumers’ point of view - continued spending HARD earned money so the rich can get richer for mere singing and acting! So what is the next best thing? Well cheaper entertainment, of course! We can copy one DVD or CD and share the wealth so to speak among others whom have the same belief. The entertainment has gone from $15 plus to a mere, at most, $5. Who wouldn’t pay $5 for entertainment? No one! What will it cost Hollywood and the record producers alike? One-third their salary - yes, still in the millions with this cut.

    Copyrights secure the salaries of talented people and nothing more. Its simple to see, the movies and music 'value' is nothing more than the actors and musicians salary. Understandably they’re very good at what they do; but so are the Florida orange juice producers. Should we start giving them $15 plus for one instance of their product too?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.