11-15: "Lefts" of Passage

In this day, everything is slowly turning into a commodity. Water has been privatized; in certain countries it is illegal to capture rain water for human use.

The latest thing to come under attack is copyright. While it is not close to being an all inclusive club, the length of a copyright should not extend indefinitely. Currently, the law protects Intellectual Properties for 70 years after the applicant's death. At what point does the term "limited" drop off?

I really wish I had my book right now but left it somewhere. So, sorry for the lack of quotes or the butchering of quotes.

Our fore-fathers believed copyrights were a necessary evil. However, artistic work had protection for a limited time (14 years I believe). The purpose was to reward the creator while allowing the public to generate ideas from the work once the copyright expired. In its (copyrights) original form, it balanced protection and innovation. Today, I would hardly say this is true.

The owners of copyrights continue to hoard their licenses. More years keep accumulating before the expiration of copyrights. How long will it be until nothing enters into the public domain? And now, with the advancement of technology, stricter laws may soon develop to combat piracy. A social rift is already being created.

Look at i-tunes, people have to pay to download songs. Those with the capable technology and funds can do so with ease. But, what about people with little or no access to the internet or people without the means to pay for such technology? Part of society's duty is to educate citizens. But now, one has to pay in order to do so. Granted, i-tunes is a bit of a stretch towards my overall point, but this technology is relatively new. This situation is analogous.

We have already seen the length of copyrights extended. But, does the public benefit from this? If so, intellectual properties would enter the public domain. This is not the case. The ownership remains with the artist or corporation. At some point, revenue will be generated from online media. Then, there will be a socio-economic rift between people who can afford such a luxury and those who can't. So, is "Copy Left" the answer?

"Copy Left" is a movement that, in simple terms, wishes to have intellectual properties enter the public domain. I believe that, while some may classify them as socialists, they are ultimately egalitarians. Equal access should be for all, not for those who can afford it. Is society going to charge people for taking books out of a public library?

Thinking about this, libraries are in defiance of copyright laws. Anyone can walk into a library and look at a book. Nothing stops the person from copying the entire book. Is it the libraries' responsibility to ensure this doesn't happen? Who is at fault? In a "Copy Left" world, issues will rise but the complexities of these issues probably won't be as great. Copyrights have had 200+ years to become distorted, twisted, raped, pillaged, plundered...etc. Isn't it time to let ideas morph from one thing to another, much like Dante morphing Virgil who in turn morphed Homer?