The problem with copyright enforcement is that when the parameters aren't incredibly well defined, it means big corporations, who have deeper pockets and better lawyers, can bully people.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not a big believer in our copyright laws; I find them way too restrictive.
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the development and distribution of our culture.
Now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious burden on the creative process.
The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, but some draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve.
It's hard to see how the Copyright Office can rise to the many challenges of the 21st-century work that you do without dramatically more independence and dramatically more flexibility.
All over the world copyright holders are trying to limit consumers' rights. We cannot have that.
In making policy designed with copyright in mind, you end up making decisions about whether other important technologies, such as privacy-enhancing or file-search technologies, should be encouraged or discouraged. A collision is happening between creativity and protecting IP.
When you have a group of engineers and designers, they are not exactly the best to deal with copyright law.
Laws and mechanisms originally meant to enforce copyright, protect children and fight online crime are abused to silence or intimidate political critics.
Certainly the interest in asserting copyright is a justified one.
No opposing quotes found.