Comment Short Term & Long Term (Score 1) 979
I am writing as a nonspecialist, but to me the problem of copyright infringement, to use Thomas Friedman's analogy, is a little like the sunrise; it's going to happen whether or not we like it.
Before capitalism there was no real need for copyright that I know of. Authors were flattered to have other authors borrow their ideas; Erasmus was highly insulted when someone suggested he had written for money. It might well be that centuries from now, if other economic systems develop, that there will again be no need for such protections.
In our present system, we do need some form of protection to guarantee further investment, whether it be in music, film, software, or medicine. Nevertheless, I think that much of the problem would disappear with considerably less greedy copyright periods. A film or recording might have ten years; a piece of software or medicine might have five. This would ensure profit while permitting a much vaster repository of public-owned materials, and I think the key difference is fairness. This concept sounds a little naive, but one emotion which I believe drives piracy is the partly justified feeling that copyright has been abused.
I agree that intellectual property exists, but perhaps property is indeed a misleading word, as it suggests something permanent and tangible. I also think it is important to point out that free access to someone's ideas is different from plagiarism. I would not have a problem with a book falling into public domain in a shorter time period, but there still needs to be recognition of the author's origination of the work in the academic world.