Copyright was a reasonable bargain when printing a book involved a large up-front investment of typesetting it and then printing all the copies that would ever be printed from that setup. It didn't affect most people, just printers. And it enabled authors to make a living from writing. This held a fortiori for phonograph records.
It became fairly dubious in the age of photocopiers and tape recorders, but fortunately was little enforced, except in the USSR. A photocopier was useless without typeset or handwritten text to copy, and a tape recorder was no substitute for a recording studio, and the copies degraded every generation, so publishing houses were still needed.
Now every computer is a book-copying and music-copying machine more powerful than the entire publishing industry a few decades ago: it can transmit a gigabit per second, and for a one-megabyte book, that's 125 copies a second, 10 million copies a day, 3 billion copies a year, so copyright is a constant danger to everyone. Fanfic sites are full of people sharing stories they wrote with no expectation of making money. Soundcloud is full of indie band recordings edited in Audacity. The age of the rich celebrity authors like Isaac Asimov or Ernest Hemingway ended decades ago, not due to xeroxes but due to TV. (We still have celebrity musicians, but it's not clear that helping the Rolling Stones buy cocaine is an important public policy objective.) The best software is free software, as copyright makes proprietary software untrustworthy, creating incentives to stuff it with malware. And, even if Elsevier were paying researchers instead of vice versa, the idea that copyright on research papers could fund research is as ludicrous as the idea that people would stop singing songs and telling stories without monopoly profits.
Apps, videos, and websites constantly disappear due to (often groundless) accusations of copyright violations. Police evade accountability by playing copyrighted music, rendering any recordings of their abuses copyright violations. A friend of mine committed suicide after being prosecuted for copyright violations that might have been fair use; we'll never know.
So, I would set the copyright term at zero years. Legal monopolies on preserving and sharing knowledge are not only useless in today's world, they are harmful, a monstrous menace to the integrity of the historical record and to private communication.
To add to your point, the futility of copyright enforcement in the digital age created a new industry in the form of DRM and YouTube auto-takedown algorithms.
There is still an up front cost associated with the creation of software or works that get distributed in a digital format. Even in the best case scenario where the hardware was free, the OS was free, and the software tools were free, the creator still has to spend his or her time on making the copyrighted work. They deserve to have options that allow them to be compensated for that labor. I reject the false dichotomy that states copyright law should continue to be abused or be done away with entirely.
The example you provided regarding the printing press resonates with me as an author. I have not included any form of DRM with the digital copies of my book and I won't go after individuals who pirate it. But, I will enforce my copyright on the work if a large company like Amazon tries to start selling it without my permission. When you say there should be no copyright, you're saying a giant corporation I want nothing to do with is entitled to profit off of three years of my labor, for free, without my consent.
There needs to be a more nuanced approach where laws are written and interpreted in a way that benefits regular everyday people. Abolishing copyright would do the opposite.
Creators are free to choose to spend their time doing creative work, or not, as we please. I'm going to keep writing for the public, and so are lots of other people, and we don't care if you do or not. Amazon or anyone else can redistribute our work; that way it reaches more people. They won't have much luck selling it when you can just download it for free.
If you think the world owes you something in return for spending your time writing, you should take your ball and go home. We have a civilization to preserve here that copyright is threatening — children to educate, medical treatments to deliver, historical films to copy onto non-rotting stock, private communications it's intolerable to scan for forbidden information on which the government has granted you a monopoly — and any one of these is more important than what you think you deserve.
> The New York Times reports that in some countries where "1984" is in the public domain opportunists are printing cheap versions of the novel and listing them on Amazon, avoiding paying royalties owed to Orwell's estate in the US.
> The New York Times found 11 of the 12 fake Orwell books it ordered were dispatched from an Amazon warehouse and were labelled "new." The books cost as little as $3.
This seems like an obvious net-negative for society.
Seems like a net positive: more people can read 1984. If your concern is that someone might publish a modified version of the text, why, public-domain status makes that easy to detect and analyze, because anyone can share the original version, which copyright makes illegal.
Copyright was a reasonable bargain when printing a book involved a large up-front investment of typesetting it and then printing all the copies that would ever be printed from that setup. It didn't affect most people, just printers. And it enabled authors to make a living from writing. This held a fortiori for phonograph records.
It became fairly dubious in the age of photocopiers and tape recorders, but fortunately was little enforced, except in the USSR. A photocopier was useless without typeset or handwritten text to copy, and a tape recorder was no substitute for a recording studio, and the copies degraded every generation, so publishing houses were still needed.
Now every computer is a book-copying and music-copying machine more powerful than the entire publishing industry a few decades ago: it can transmit a gigabit per second, and for a one-megabyte book, that's 125 copies a second, 10 million copies a day, 3 billion copies a year, so copyright is a constant danger to everyone. Fanfic sites are full of people sharing stories they wrote with no expectation of making money. Soundcloud is full of indie band recordings edited in Audacity. The age of the rich celebrity authors like Isaac Asimov or Ernest Hemingway ended decades ago, not due to xeroxes but due to TV. (We still have celebrity musicians, but it's not clear that helping the Rolling Stones buy cocaine is an important public policy objective.) The best software is free software, as copyright makes proprietary software untrustworthy, creating incentives to stuff it with malware. And, even if Elsevier were paying researchers instead of vice versa, the idea that copyright on research papers could fund research is as ludicrous as the idea that people would stop singing songs and telling stories without monopoly profits.
Apps, videos, and websites constantly disappear due to (often groundless) accusations of copyright violations. Police evade accountability by playing copyrighted music, rendering any recordings of their abuses copyright violations. A friend of mine committed suicide after being prosecuted for copyright violations that might have been fair use; we'll never know.
So, I would set the copyright term at zero years. Legal monopolies on preserving and sharing knowledge are not only useless in today's world, they are harmful, a monstrous menace to the integrity of the historical record and to private communication.