Kroneborge
Some people might not want to ever earn anything, and that's their right.  But that doesn't mean they get to decide what's right for me.

 
And that's EXACTLY the point of intellectual property - the creator gets to decide what to do with it, and that can be anything from giving it away, to licensing it, to never letting it out in the world.
 
 

The problem I have with the current copyright laws is the influence of 'Mickey Mouse' on the whole system. Copyright as it is now designed is not there to help anyone except those who have an interest in controlling information, for whatever the reason. Copyright goes back to the 1500s and the introduction of the printing press. It was a desire by the church and government to control the information that was being published. Nothing has really changed since then.
 
In the United States, the Copyright Act of 1790 limited the term of copyright to 14 years. The author could apply to extend the copyright by 14 years. In 1831 it was amended to have a period of 28 years with an option for a 14-year renewal, and in 1909 it was amended again to 28 and the option for a 28 year renewal. Major changes occurred in 1976, thanks to Mickey Mouse and Disney. Mickey was getting ready to go into the Public Domain, and as a major money maker for Disney, they lobbied hard for changes in the copyright statute. This resulted in the largest change to copyright laws in the United States.

• extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years
• extended federal copyright to unpublished works
• preempted state copyright laws

Now you no longer needed to apply for a copyright on your work, it was automatic as soon as the work was created.
 
Further changes in the copyright laws also had a major impacts. In 1992 the requirement for renewal was removed. 1998 saw the terms of copyright extended to the life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. The reality of this is that most works created in 1923 will not enter the public domain until 2019. Lastly, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) of 1998 criminalized some forms of copyright infringement (prior to this, copyright infringement cases were always handled in civil courts).
 
So we have gone from 14 years to 120 years (or more, depending on the particular case). Further, we have switched from an active registration requirement, to no registration requirement. And you can be thrown in jail. Today, nothing is going into the public domain unless it is actively placed there by the author (as our good friend on this board Anderton has done).
 
In my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far. The current laws on copyright do not protect the authors, but instead provide immense power to the media conglomerates (of which there are only about 6 that control the overwhelming majority of all information in the United States) and further it allows them to use the powers of the government and law enforcement to 'enforce' copyright law. There is no 'common sense' in copyright law when it can be used to bring 'criminal' charges (and waste law enforcement resources).
 
Yes, the media companies can look the other way, when it is convenient, or not. They can demand that law enforcement investigate and prosecute. To me that is a bit over the top. They can choose to ruin you in court if they so choose.
 
I am not against copyright, and as Kroneborge stated, he should have a right to use his works as he sees fit. But there needs to be a balance, and as I said at the start, to me that balance is no longer there.

MandolinPicker
I am not against copyright, and as Kroneborge stated, he should have a right to use his works as he sees fit. But there needs to be a balance, and as I said at the start, to me that balance is no longer there.

 
I agree. Not the first time those with the power to buy legislation have used the law to their financial advantage.

It's perhaps worth commenting that copyright law in the UK has never required registration of copyright. Put simply, copyright automatically belongs to the author of the work (or their employer if created during employment or otherwise assigned) and there has therefore never been a requirement to renew copyright after 14 or any other number of years.

Not requiring registration of copyright gives authors far more protection than requiring registration, and the old US requirement to register has provided music industry lawyers with quite a nice little earner from UK songwriters who didn't initially register their works in the US.

Don't even get me started on the requirements regarding trade-mark protection in the US, we're already far enough off-topic as it is :-)

"Lastly, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) of 1998 criminalized some forms of copyright infringement (prior to this, copyright infringement cases were always handled in civil courts)."
 
Criminal penalties for copyright infringement of certain types first appeared in US law in 1897. But the government attorney has wide latitude to decide which cases he will prosecute. For all practical purposes most infringement will still require the copyright holder to pay for a civil suit, and unless he has timely registered the work he will not be able to recover attorneys fees if his suit succeeds. If you are Microsoft or Disney you have a good shot at getting the government to prosecute, but good luck if you are an independent artist. Conversely if you are making only a few infringing copies, you are unlikely to do jail time or pay fines. 
 
The No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) of 1997 largely removed any requirement that infringement be done for monetary gain from the right to bring criminal charges. In part this was probably motivated by the now common belief of many people that there is nothing really wrong with giving away someone else's music, which has arguably had a significant impact on the income of copyright holders, without making very many of the Robin Hoods of file sharing rich. Robin Hood is unlikely to have enough assets to make a civil suit worth the cost, but if he is making thousands of copies he may be dissuaded by fear of criminal sanctions.