Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Why copyright should expire after 10 years

Over recent decades, the term of protection offered by copyright law has (in most countries) been repeatedly extended as a result of heavy lobbying by certain corporations.

Originally, copyright was a mechanism designed to ensure that those who created songs, books, poems and other works, had some form of protection and thus were able to earn a living from their efforts. It was supposed to be a method for ensuring that those who did the creating could put food on their tables. It was not designed as a method of making people insanely wealthy.

However, thanks to the efforts of the recording and movie industries (particularly the likes of Disney), the US government has extended the term of protection several times such that it has become a license to print money, almost in perpetuity.

Now I'm someone who relies on copyright to ensure that I can put food on my table but I'm going to make a very bold suggestion. Slash the term of copyright protection to just 10 years.

The reality is that the vast majority of any revenue generated by a creative work tends to occur during the first decade after its release.

Yes, people still buy songs from the 1960s and watch movies from the 1970s but the vast majority of the real money is being spent on contemporary works and those which are less than a decade old.

If the term of copyright protection was reduced to 10 years it would not make a hell of a lot of difference to most of those who rely on it.

I still get royalties from books and other works I created over 10 years ago but, to be honest, the amounts are barely enough to buy a cup of coffee so I would far rather that those works were now in the public domain and acting as a sales-tool for the stuff I do now.

The obscenity of a 70-year copyright term becomes obvious when we see how much money people like actors, producers and directors make from a movie these days.

How the hell, as "human beings" can we justify paying someone like Tom Cruise tens of millions of dollars for a few weeks work when, at the same time, there are others in our society who hold down three jobs and work 100 hours a week, every week of the year, just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table?

A good cleaner will probably be working for little more than the minimum wage so they'll end up with less than $500 in the hand each week. I shudder to think how much Mr Cruise or his peers earn on a weekly basis. Which would you rather have -- crappy movies or a clean bathroom and office at your place of work? Which is really the more valuable occupation then?

So how is it that rappers, movie stars and the executives within those industries can drive around in supercars and spend six months of the years holidaying in Hawaii while the rest of us have to make do with 10-year-old second hand Toyotas?

It's simple... the term of copyright protection has gotten way out of hand. This protection no longer ensures that artists, singers, painters and others who engage create works that qualify for protection can earn a fair living. The term is now so long that these industries are able to live the lives of kings.

I'm all for paying anyone a fair wage for their efforts -- and this includes rappers and actors. However, the key word there is "fair". I'm picking that if we reduced the term of copyright protection to 10 years then the amount of money these people were paid would become a whole lot more "fair" than it is now and that means that we, the consumers, would also be getting a much fairer deal.

What would be the down-sides of such a move?

Well for the vast majority of people -- there would be no downside.

For those currently enjoying the good-life provided by the 70-year term then there would obviously be disadvantages. They'd have to learn to live on less than their current obscene incomes but surprisingly -- not much less.

The reality is that revenue from their "creative efforts" often does not represent the majority of their earnings. Many of the "big names" earn as much or more from endorsements and other sources as they do from acting, singing or whatever. Such earnings would be unaffected by a 10-year copyright term.

I think that most of us are supposed to be living in a democracy so if we want a 10-year term then all we have to do is ask for it -- right? If the majority demand such a change and are denied it then perhaps we will also realise that our "democracy" is also a myth and has been hijacked by many of the same parties who have distorted the meaning and role of copyright law.

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font