copywrong.

I found the article " The Tyranny of Copyright?" to be intriguing because I didn't realize that certain information is suspended from the public domain for as long as 95 years depending on the material. The Copy Left has a valid point in requesting shorter copyrights on "intellectual property" because 95 years is a long time and a lot of things can change in that period of time. I think that length of time is a bit excessive, especially the fact that, according to Robert S. Boyton, "copyright protection for individuals lasts for 70 years after the death of the author." Let's examine this concept. For example, if an author published an article and it was accessible online and therefore protected by a copyright. Just to be practical, the author obviously wanted the information in the public eye to begin with, or s/he would not of written it down and published it. While they are alive, they should and will receive due credit for their work and ideas. Once they die, however, it probably doesn't matter to them if they get credit for their "intellectual property" or not. Monetary compensation for said idea is a completely different situation, but at the simplest level of analysis, I don't think that a post-mortem 70-year copyright protection is anywhere close to necessary.

The Copy Left is not trying to completely banish the idea of a copyright, but is instead being more reasonable about what the public should have free access to. I also thought that the point raised in the article about alteration to the 1909 Copyright Act in 1976 which essentially made everything on the internet "automatically copyrighted the moment it was 'fixed in a tangible medium'"was interesting. I think this is an excellent example of why laws in general, including copyright law, should be changed to adjust to current technology especially if the last alteration was made prior to the creation of the internet as we know it. The adjustment to the Copyright Act is a prime example of slippery slope legislation.