So copyrights are too broad is what your saying?

So why aren't we fixing the real issue of overly broad copyrights? Is that not more sound than saying a mans work isn't his to decide on anymore? (speaking of actual work here)

Sure I can't prove what there isn't a guideline to compare with but the shear fact that 10 times more entertainment material is released yearly compared with 20 years ago is a pretty good indicator.

This is much more complicated than finding a middle ground that is considered reasonable such as putting speed limits and signage for many other purposes. Maybe you are young or haven't had to deal with people much but not everybody has the same capabilities. Someone that learns to drive at the age of 35 won't have the same aptitudes on the roads as the one that started at the age of 16. Same goes for experience on the road. If you drive 3000 miles per year versus one that drives 30 000 miles, you clearly won't have the same confidence behind the wheel. Drivers under the age of 25 are statistically more dangerous due to their lack of experience. It's also the reason why their insurance is more than 2 times one of an adult aged 25-35.

Yes but I can only speak of my experience and it spans over half of North America (Yes, I drive a lot)

Go ahead and be childish, just shows me your level of maturity.

Good for you having experience in the field. Where I live I can see the speed limits are fairly consistent with the level of danger applicable to the roads in question.

What you said is very true. Local demand is a great motivator but like anything you start by sorting it and eventually demand arises. There are many construction material companies that have designed products based on recycled materials. The companies usually come to life because of the low cost for the primary materials they require. The processes are expensive but with time they become more affordable as proper techniques and the right expertise becomes available.

I know where I live that a % of recycled materials goes back in the landfill but the bulk of the volume is saved. Metal, paper, cardboard and some plastics are sent to different locations for reprocessing.

Metal is the easiest of all recycled products to reuse. Cardboard is probably second on the list with Plastic being the most difficult one which in many cases is just discarded to the landfill. The amount of plastic recycled has increased but the process hasn't changed much in the last 10 years.

Most non techies wouldn't go and do that but even my mother who now hates Apple products was able to get all her music off iTunes and move it to her Android device. Sure it took her over 3 hours to figure it all out but she managed to do.

She was so proud of her technical achievements. Lol!!

And that's the key component which most cases are settled on. Do I agree with all verdicts? No. Do I agree with some of them, Yes. Smith vs Petty, BAD CASE. Lower time constraints would have prevented the verdict BUT it may also not have and it still would not have been a fair verdict.

Re-defining what copyrights cover is far more important than the period of time it covers it for. My 2 cents.

I'm confused by why people are hung up on the time constraints. The expiry isn't the issue, its the definition surround what is copyright that's an issue.

Many have written music based on other music before contacting the artist. The best option is to contact the artist first.

Even if I don't agree with the verdict in Smith vs Petty, at the end of the day Smith is still making a crap load of money regardless of payments needing to be made to Petty's copyright owners.

Keep in mind that I didn't say the copyright laws are perfect. If anything it requires lots of attention but he time constraint isn't the real issue.

You must be 16. Angry and confused.

I like what you wrote because I feel the same way. I think he provided a great service to the whole world.

I'd also be curious how many of the millennials would hire him to work in their business. I bet the % would be significantly lower and I wouldn't blame them.

I'm curious if the older generation would think more of Snowden if he faced the music after releasing the information? After all, heroes of the people have either suffered or even died for their cause to be recognized.

I got marked troll by people who don't know the definition of the word "Creativity". I guess that's /. users for you.

You are coming off the main topic of copyright extension. The time period isn't the issue and that's why I get annoyed by most users who respond to that change. The issue is the lacking definition of limitation of reach for the copyright. The Smith vs Petty case is a great example of the copyright being too general.

The copyright should protect the artist for his actual work, not resemblance of his work. That would solve the whole issue wouldn't it?

Show me where it says that. There's nothing preventing you from using their content. All that will happen is payment will be required in form of a royalty that may be more than it would have been if you go their authorization. There are tones of cases like that even more recently Smith vs Petty (which in my opinion is BS). FYI, they can't decline you from being inspired by their music or innovate from their concept. New types of music appear all the time and many artist hop on the band wagon

That's for you to go find out but I'm sure that's well covered.

You don't understand copyright law (And I don't claim to be an expert). You can still make music based on existing music. All you need to do is get authorization from the author. The author may require a royalty which I consider a non issue.

Everybody seems to be stuck on the idea that the time limit is the issue. It's not the time limit, it's the lack of flexibility around the copyrights themselves. There's nothing wrong with the song being protected, after all it's his/her work. The problem real problem is the grey line that allowed a case like Smith vs Petty to go in favor of the copyright owner. To me that just shows the copyright laws are tool general and/or lacking definition and limitations.