0 How I Would Change Copyright Law

To Revise Copyright Law to Respect the Context and Intent of The Constitutional Provisions Surrounding it.

The Constitutional Provision Respecting Copyright

The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science

and useful Arts, by securing for limited Tımes to Authors and Inventors

the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

• promote the Progress, I assert that the current copyright law is counterproductive to the original intent and purpose of The Constitutional Provisions set fourth, and that it behaves the exact opposite in practice and intent: to stifle and limit the freedoms of ingenuity and creativity that it was set in place to promote and help flourish.
• limited Times, I adhere that limited times has grown in duration and magnitude, so much so, that it can no longer be classified as limited times, and is actually violating the Constitutional Provisions set fourth. I declare that limited times, as it's context and definition implies to the intent of The Constitution, is directly proportional to the time it was created, and the live spans of the owners involved. I exclaim that it is a limited time of when it was first created and the life spans of the owners concerned that it applies to, and that limited is a correlation of those durations.
• In conclusion, the copyright as it stands doesn't promote further progress of useful arts and, in actuality, actually prohibits progress. It is at odds with the people's freedoms and must be changed accordingly.

§302 · Duration of copyright:

Works created on or after January 1, 1978

(a) In General.—Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978,

subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections,

endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the

author’s death.

• If a copyright owner lives to be 80, which is not unreasonable, and then dies, as it stands, the copyrighted work would extend another 70 years: making it 150 years before society can produce anything of merit from it. This is outrageous and ill-conceived. This is hardly classified as limited, and is outside the context and intent of the Constitution. These restrictions of current copyright law doesn't promote progress nor are contained within a limited time frame. All it encourages is stagnation and rot of innovations and manifestations of thought: allowing perpetual gain and monetization beyond copyright's intended scope; all it succeeds at doing is limiting the freedoms of the People to promote the welfare of money and exploitations of intellectual constructs. It gives a perpetual ownership to intangible ideas that is at the very basis of our freedoms as a People. This can't be allowed to continue and grow exponentially until our every, very thought and action are denied and outlawed because of ownerships and stipulations of copyright law.
• Therefore, I petition the government to make revisions which are retroactive and respective of the original intent of the Constitutional Provisions concerning copyright law. These new revisions should promote progress and respect the rights of owners to contribute to society; they should also be limited in scope and not interfere with related concepts or overlapping ideas. The new provisions set fourth should be limited in temporal duration as well as affecting scope in this interconnected world in which we now live in. I propose that copyright extends no less than 50 years and no more than the lifespan of the individual that created it; I further propose that derivatives be just as limited in scope and context: to allow for new, inspired innovations without fear of reprisal, with regard to it being unique in it's own right. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this proposal.