Copyright Lecture

Jason Hardin gave a lecture in class yesterday about copyright law in the US.  I found it pretty fascinating from a legal perspective- it makes sense that I want to be a lawyer.  In order to understand copyright law, one must first understand what a copyright is.

Copyright: noun/  a legal recognition by the government of an intellectual property holder’s rights to reproduce a work, redistribute it, and capitalize on it exclusively.

I learned in the lecture that copyright law has been around since before the Bill of Rights.  The founding fathers considered it important for promoting the development of the arts in the newly formed nation.  According to Title 17, the section of US federal law describing copyright policy, anytime you create something original and set it in a fixed, tangible medium, it is protected under copyright for the duration of the creator's life plus 70 years.  Registering it for an official copyright is not necessary, although it is advisable if you are concerned that your work might be used by others against your will.  Registering for copyrights can be expensive, however.  It is a felony to commit a copyright infringement involving more than 10 copies and a value of more than $2500.  I think that's a little harsh, personally.  If sued for this, one can claim Fair Use, in which case he or she might be vindicated based on the nature of the work, the purpose of the reproduction, the amount reproduced, and the effect of the reproduction on the copyright holder's profits.  

I found the dilemma of a non-profit organization reproducing illegally pretty interesting because from a legal perspective its legality is rather ambiguous.  Consider the case of a church choir reproducing sheet music to save money.  On the one hand, the church is considered a non-profit, and thus is viewed upon favorably by Fair Use's consideration of the purpose of a reproduction.  On the other hand, the choir did this in order to avoid paying, and it would decrease profits of the copyright holder.  Legally, this is rather complicated.  Ultimately, I would have to say that the church's case is the weaker one from a legal perspective, though morally I would side with the church or non-profit.