Copyright violation IS a real problem.

[malthaussen]

I used Google search to try to identify the provenance of a painting I've seen around. A million sites may use the pic, but none credit the painter. So I reckon when creative artists bitch about their work being used without compensation or credit, they have a legitimate beef after all.

-- Mal

[dewsgirl]

1. It really is, right now if I chose to I could watch any movie

I want for free, on the clearweb, even with the DMCA ommiting search results. I don't of course, but it is very easy. The same goes for music. It is not fair to the artists.

[Ron Obvious]

2. The indefinite extensions of copyrights have already broken half the bargain.

I'll be more than happy to respect copyright more if the original copyright periods (7 years with 1 optional 7 year extension) were brought back, or at least a reasonable length depending on the type of work. Most of it is sheer rent-seeking behaviour by corporations who had nothing to do with the creative aspects of the work in question either.

Screw Disney.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

3. Actually, the original copyright period in this country was 14 years,

renewable for another 14. Then it was changed to 28 years. Then the copyright act of 1976 changed it to 75 years or the life of the author plus 50 years. Now it's 120 years or life of the author plus 70 years. Which I agree is too long.

But 7 years would be hideously short. I'm a sometime writer, and while I am not well published or well known out there, I'm glad that the first story I ever had published (25 years ago now) is still under copyright protection.

Heck if it were only 14 years altogether, Hollywood would never need to pay for movie or TV rights. Just wait 14 years.

[Ron Obvious]

4. That's why I mentioned "type of work"

7 years would be probably more than enough for video games or most software, for example. I'll take the 14+14 year deal, though.