The copyright period
The copyright period given guaranteed to last about 70 years after an individual’s death is substantial enough duration to hold an author’s work. It facilitates the protection of work during an author’s work and ensures proceeding years the work is not infringed on. Allowing work into the public domain does not hinder the creativity levels of upcoming authors. Instead, it gives insight into the aspects of work already done and broadens people’s mindset into furthering the scope. Better yet, people develop ideas on bettering the already completed work (Carlisle, 2014). Just like the manufacturing of phones, they serve the same primary functions but differ on slight details that individuals personalize. Progressive extension of time frames is an essentiality that is taken by individuals to ensure they retain copyrights to their work longer. It does not, however, limit the making of the work available to masses. Individuals can access the work and read through them without necessarily waiting for the works to be declared public domain (Vollmer, 2018). Insinuating the works are being retained or being denied to the public is overly unprofessional as they can access works within the legal domain. Those seeking inspiration can get a lot of it through the works without necessarily having to duplicate the material.
As stated by Yulia Cohn, most states allow for individuals caused harm within bar establishments to sue both the owners and the perpetrators. I am tempted to agree with her conclusion, however, indecisive it seems. Establishment owners should not be made to bear the brunt of a patron’s lack of judgment in letting their feelings get mixed up with the alcohol. There should have been more insight given to the business part, and how it handles insurance coverage especially to damages that altercations cause within their premises. Dram shop laws should also offer more intensive information with regards to an altercation and the premises. Allowing more individuals to get sue establishment by brawls started by patrons will derail the business functions of the area. As stated by Cohn, the laws allow for injured civilians to sue for compensations from the establishment. In the long run, continued legal issues may cause the foreclosure of these establishments as the profits raked may be little as to what they payout for compensations. Bar brawls are an inconvenience that tends to happen in such areas, therefore the laws should be more lenient to the bars.
Solange Nhan agrees with the duration of copyrighted works being just enough but makes a clear distinction in striking time balance. Enough time that guarantees the owners enjoy the fruits of their work and time for others to use their work without fear of being penalized. However, the mentioning of individuals infringing on copyrighted work before they are in the public domain is a basic occurrence. Individuals infringe on materials to ensure their works gain recognition through the use of other people’s work. Some do it intentionally while others being ardent fans are too entangled in the work they are not able to distinguish where the lines are drawn. Disagreement is in the case where the mentioning of creativity being stifled by copyrighted materials. Individuals cannot be limited to the scope of their thinking unless they cage themselves into a particular norm of thinking. An example can be relying on too much from people’s work. They need only get the inspiration and insight put into the work for them to make better versions of it or simply create something new from the material. There should be time given to the copyright holders to ensure that they do not increase the cost of expression as stated by Nhan.