Open Access Research Article
THE ETHICS OF PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT: SHOULD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EVER BE PERMANENT?
Published Paper
Article Details
THE ETHICS
OF PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT: SHOULD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EVER BE PERMANENT?
AUTHORED BY - ARYA P
LLM CANDIDATE
Christ
(Deemed To Be) University, Bangalore
ABSTRACT
The purpose of copyright laws is to strike a balance between the public's
access to knowledge and culture and the rights of producers. However, there are
serious ethical, legal, and financial issues with discussions about extending
copyright terms, which might make intellectual property rights permanent. In
light of India's Copyright Act, 1957, which presently provides protection for
the author's lifetime plus 60 years, this essay explores the idea of perpetual
copyright. Critics caution that indefinite copyright limits public access,
stifles invention, and favors big businesses over individual authors, despite
some arguing that it would preserve an author's legacy and offer ongoing
financial incentives. This paper examines global trends in copyright law,
including instances from the US and the EU, pertinent court decisions, and the
legal underpinnings of copyright length in India. In order to evaluate the
effects of everlasting copyright on India's legal system, creativity, and
cultural growth, the research compares international copyright frameworks. In
order to safeguard both the public interest and authors, alternate strategies
are also investigated, such as expanded moral rights and fair use clauses. The
results underscore the necessity of a well-balanced copyright framework that
protects intellectual property rights and guarantees fair access to artistic
creations in a democracy and knowledge-based society.
Keywords: Perpetual copyright, creativity, fair access,
invention
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of copyright law is to
achieve a balance between promoting authors' original works and making sure
that, after copyright protection ends, society still benefits from these works.
Copyright gives writers the short-term, sole authority to manage the creation,
distribution, and sale of their works. But after the copyright period expires,
the work becomes public domain, meaning that anybody can use and access it
without restriction. Economic growth, creativity, and cultural development are
encouraged by this harmony between accessibility and preservation. The issue of
whether copyright protection should ever be forever is a major one in copyright
law today. Discussions over the ethical, legal, and economic ramifications of
eternal copyright which would provide indefinite protection for intellectual
property have been triggered worldwide.Proponents contend that works of art
should always belong to their creators and descendants, just like material
property.[1] They
contend that lifetime financial compensation would encourage ongoing creative
and intellectual production while guaranteeing that no one else would mislead,
distort, or profit from an author's legacy.Perpetual copyright, according to
detractors, runs counter to the core ideas of intellectual property law[2]. The goal
of copyright is to create a social compact that strikes a balance between the
rights of authors and the public's access to information and culture.
Indefinite copyright extensions hinder education, restrict public access, and
impede invention. As a result of earlier works becoming public domain, which
allowed for reconsideration and creativity, many of the greatest artistic,
literary, and scientific breakthroughs in history were made possible.
Additionally, critics caution that monopolization and a decline in
cross-cultural interaction result from permanent copyright, which largely favors
big businesses over individual artists. In accordance with international norms,
India's Copyright Act, 1957, currently provides protection for the author's
lifetime plus an additional 60 years. However, there are still worries about
possible future expansions because corporate lobbying has an impact on
copyright laws all around the world. In order to better balance the interests
of authors with public access in the digital era, this study investigates the
ethical and legal ramifications of eternal copyright in India, looking at
alternate strategies such expanded moral rights and fair use clauses.
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK OF COPYRIGHT IN INDIA
The Copyright Act, 1957, which
governs copyright law in India, protects a variety of creative works, such as
sound recordings, cinematographic films, and literary, dramatic, musical, and
artistic works. Finding a balance between defending authors' rights and
guaranteeing public access to information and culture is the main goal of
copyright law. India's legal system makes sure that copyrighted content
eventually becomes public domain, where the general public can freely access
and use it, in contrast to perpetual copyright, which would permit indefinite
control over works[3]. The
limited-term protection mechanism used by the Indian copyright system means
that creative works are made available for unrestricted use after a specific
amount of time. However, discussions about further extending the copyright
length have been sparked by global influences, international trade agreements,
and corporate lobbying. This has raised concerns about whether India would
eventually embrace laws that result in a de facto perpetual copyright regime.
COMPARING INDIA’S COPYRIGHT DURATION WITH
GLOBAL STANDARDS
In the United States, Copyright is valid
for life plus 70 years for individual authors and 95 years from the date of
publication for corporately held works under the Copyright Term Extension Act
(1998), also referred to as the Sonny Bono Act. [4]Corporate
lobbying, especially from Disney, which aimed to increase protection for icons
like Mickey Mouse, had a significant impact on this. European Union: Unlike
India, which has a life + 60-year scheme, the EU Copyright Directive requires
individual authors to have protection for 70 years. Australia: For individual
creators, copyright is valid for life plus 70 years, much like in the US and
the EU. Nonetheless, Australia's strong fair dealing laws guarantee more
freedom for usage in research and teaching.
A minimum copyright period of life +
50 years is required by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) agreement, to which India is a signatory (WTO). The life + 60
years model from India goes beyond and beyond this minimal need, proving
adherence to international intellectual property regulations[5]. Even
though India's copyright period is shorter than that of the US and EU,
discussions about extending it further have persisted, mostly due to pressure
from foreign trade and business interests. India would further postpone the release
of creative works into the public domain and possibly limit access to
information and cultural items if it were to extend its copyright term to life
+ 70 years.
In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), The question of
originality in copyright protection was addressed in this case. In order to
prevent perpetual monopolization of knowledge, the Supreme Court decided that
simple mechanical compilations of factual information are not eligible for
copyright protection. Because it forbids publishers from asserting copyright
over content that ought to be in the public domain and emphasizes the value of
limited-term protection, this ruling is noteworthy.[6]
The Chancellor Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v.
Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2016), The issue concerned fair use in education
and whether duplicating anything protected by copyright for scholarly purposes
was illegal. The Delhi High Court upheld fair use, stressing that copyright
laws shouldn't impede research and education. Because it emphasizes the public
interest premise in copyright law, this decision is pertinent to discussions
over perpetual copyright.[7]
THE
THREAT OF PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT AND LEGAL CONCERNS
There are worries that future changes
to the Copyright Act may produce indirect everlasting copyright through
repeated renewals, even though India now uses a limited-term copyright model.
Such modifications would bring up a number of moral and legal issues like
Monopolization of Culture, Innovation Barriers, Less Access to Education,
Conflict with Indian Constitutional Principles. By guaranteeing that works
eventually become public domain, India's copyright law now forbids perpetual
copyright. Nonetheless, de facto everlasting copyright may eventually result
via legal changes, corporate lobbying, and pressures from international trade.
Courts have often stressed that copyright has a time limit and needs to strike
a balance between the public interest and economic rights.[8]
ETHICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT
Moral Justifications for Perpetual
Copyright
Perpetual copyright proponents make
their case from a variety of ethical stances, such as labor theory, natural
rights, financial security, and cultural preservation.
1.
Natural
Rights and Intellectual Property as Personal Extension
Natural Rights Theory, which holds
that people ought to have total control over the results of their labor, serves
as one of the main ethical grounds for perpetual copyright. This argument,
which is sometimes linked to John Locke's labor theory of property, maintains
that a creator acquires a moral claim on a work when they devote time, effort,
and skill to it. Just as landowners have infinite property rights over their
land, inventors should enjoy permanent ownership of their intellectual
property.[9]
Particularly in disciplines like literature, painting, and music, where works
frequently contain profound personal expression, copyright is seen as an
extension of the creator's personality.
2.
Financial
Security for Creators and Their Descendants
Perpetual copyright is also
frequently defended ethically on the grounds that it gives inventors and their
families long-term financial stability. This argument is predicated on the
notion that: Royalties are a major source of revenue for many musicians,
authors, and artists. When a copyright expires, creators and their descendants
lose the capacity to make money, which could put them in danger of financial
instability. Similar to inheriting tangible property, perpetual copyright
guarantees that the creator's work will continue to benefit future generations.
3.
Preventing
Cultural Misuse and Exploitation
Another way to stop cultural
exploitation and misappropriation is through perpetual copyright. This is
especially pertinent when considering the Indigenous cultural expressions and
traditional knowledge, which are frequently exploited for profit without
providing benefits to the communities of origin. Colonial histories, in which
outside parties have unlawfully used artifacts, literature, and oral
traditions. Posthumous alterations are when the original intent of the works of
deceased authors and artists is violated by changes, interpretations, or uses.[10].
Ethical Arguments Against Perpetual
Copyright
Perpetual copyright has certain moral
advantages, but its detractors contend that it leads to grave moral conundrums
by limiting public access, stifling innovation, encouraging monopolization, and
putting corporate profits ahead of the sake of society.[11]
1.
Public
Access to Knowledge and Creativity
The effect everlasting copyright has
on the general public's access to innovation, culture, and knowledge is among
the strongest reasons against it. The foundation of copyright law is the belief
that: Works ought to eventually become public domain, granting unrestricted
access for study, teaching, creative reinterpretation, and cultural enrichment.
The lack of a public domain restricts historical research, artistic expression,
and innovation. The free use, adaptation, and dissemination of literary works,
creative creations, and scientific discoveries benefits societies.
2.
Stifling
Creativity and Innovation
By providing temporary exclusivity,
copyright is meant to encourage creation. On the other hand, indefinite
protection stifles creation by prohibiting others from: producing derivative
works, including remixes, reinterpretations, and adaptations, carrying out film
and literary adaptations (such as making movies based on classic novels) and
evaluating previous works both artistically and academically.
3.
Corporate
Monopolization and Restricted Access
In actuality, companies that own and
control intellectual property greatly profit from eternal copyright, not
individual creators. A lot of artistic creations eventually pass ownership to
major record labels, publishing houses, or media conglomerates. These
businesses extend copyright periods in order to keep financial control over
profitable properties. Perpetual copyright enables businesses to maintain exclusive
power over cultural assets perpetually, rather than compensating original
artists. Disney's advocacy for copyright extensions in the US to maintain the
exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse and other characters is a well-known example.
Despite their historical and cultural importance, this has kept beloved
characters and tales out of the public domain.
4.
Ethical
Concerns Over Knowledge Monopolization
Concerns over the monopolization of
academic research and scientific knowledge are raised by perpetual copyright.
The copyright protection of many scientific publications, medical advancements,
and technology advancements results in paywalls and exorbitant fees for
accessing scholarly periodicals. Little medical progress since corporate
patents continue to impede pharmaceutical development. Limited cooperation
because scientists and researchers have trouble accessing the body of existing
literature.
BALANCING
CREATOR RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST
Copyright regulations must ethically
strike a balance between the demands of society and the rights of creators. A
just system should provide inventors with fair financial incentives while
guaranteeing public access in the future. Stop corporate monopolization and
make sure that no organization keeps cultural knowledge forever.[12] Promote
fair use guidelines so that artistic reinterpretation, teaching, and research
can flourish. Extending moral rights rather than copyright lifetime could be a
compromise. Even when copyright expires, authors can preserve attribution and
avoid their creations being distorted thanks to moral rights[13]. This
could guarantee public access while addressing moral issues around abuse and
deception.
MORAL
RIGHTS UNDER INDIAN LAW
In Section 57 of the Indian Copyright
Act, 1957, the idea of moral rights is specifically acknowledged, setting them
apart from economic rights. Moral rights belong to the inventor even if
copyright ownership is transferred or disappears, in contrast to economic
rights, which can be transferred or expire after a certain amount of time. By
preventing their work from being exploited, misrepresented, or altered in ways
that could compromise its integrity, these rights help to safeguard the
reputational and personal interests of writers and artists. Two fundamental
moral rights are granted by Section 57 of the Act. Even in cases where
ownership has been passed to another party or copyright protection has expired,
the original creator is guaranteed the right to be recognized as the author of
their work by the Right of Paternity (Authorship). By ensuring that creators'
contributions are always recognized, this clause guards against incorrect
attribution or the erasing of literary and artistic identity.[14]
Indian courts have continuously
maintained the importance of moral rights, reaffirming their function as
essential protections for the integrity of literature and the arts. The Delhi
High Court held that an artist's moral rights are unalienable in the seminal
case of Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005). The case concerned the Indian
government's inappropriate removal and damaging of a mural by famous sculptor
Amar Nath Sehgal. The court emphasized that even state acts cannot supersede an
artist's right to preserve their creative expression, acknowledging Sehgal's
moral right to defend the integrity of his work.[15] Expanding and strengthening moral rights is a more
moral and well-rounded strategy than perpetually extending copyright periods.
This would allow for the gradual public release of these works while
guaranteeing that writers maintain credit and authority over their integrity.
Extending moral rights past the conclusion of economic copyright would be a
significant improvement. Under the existing system, an author's moral rights
are valid during their lifetime but do not extend beyond a certain time frame
to include posthumous legal protections.
Strengthening judicial remedies for
moral rights abuses is essential, in addition to expanding moral rights. Since
most copyright issues center on economic rights breaches rather than the quality
of the work itself, moral rights enforcement in India is currently restricted.
Establishing particular sanctions for transgressing moral rights and extending
legal standing to enable heirs or cultural institutions to preserve an author's
legacy are two ways to strengthen judicial processes.[16]
In order to resolve moral rights abuses in literature, film, and artistic
adaptations, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures could also be
implemented.[17]
The fact that authors lose money when
their creations become public domain raises further ethical questions regarding
copyright expiration. In order to help inventors and their families, a
remuneration mechanism might be implemented. Implementing a royalties for
public use system, in which public broadcasters, museums, and libraries give
authors or their heirs small sums when public domain works are utilized for
profit, is one potential strategy. Governments could also, like those in Canada
and the UK, provide subsidies to writers, musicians, and artists whose
creations have a major cultural impact. By balancing the necessity for public
access with just recompense for creative efforts, such approaches would
guarantee that creators continue to receive financial support even after their
works are made publicly available.
COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE: MORAL RIGHTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Given that France has one of the most
robust moral rights laws in the world, authors must always be given credit,
even after copyright has passed. These unalienable moral rights enable their
descendants to uphold them, avoiding deception and safeguarding the integrity
of artistic creations. The value of creative integrity has been emphasized over
time by the French courts' constant upholding of these rights. Germany offers
strong protections against distortion as well, enabling writers to stop any
changes that change the work's original meaning. To preserve the integrity of
artistic manifestations, legal agents or cultural organizations may uphold
these rights even after the death of the author. [18]By
extending the duration and extent of moral rights safeguards, India might
follow suit, guaranteeing that authors maintain control over the use of their
works while permitting the public to access and responsibly build upon them[19].
Significant problems with perpetual
copyright include monopolization, limited access, and the stifling of fresh
ideas. Strengthening moral rights is a better moral and well-rounded option
than promoting perpetual copyright extensions. Regardless of the copyright status
of their work, authors can always be acknowledged for their contributions by
guaranteeing creators' permanent attribution through the Right of Paternity.
The original aim of literary and creative works would be preserved by the Right
of Integrity, which would guard against unapproved changes or false
representations. Furthermore, moral rights are upheld even after an author's
death when heirs or cultural institutions are permitted to carry on the
artist's legacy. Compensation models for public domain works could be created
to further balance the interests of artists and the general public. These
models would give authors or their families financial support when their works
are utilized for commercial purposes. India may create a copyright regime that
safeguards artists and the public's access to cultural knowledge and artistic
expression by expanding moral rights beyond economic copyright terms. An
equitable balance between society advantages and individual acknowledgment
would be established by a well-organized moral rights framework, promoting a
legal system that benefits both the public and inventors.
WEAK
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS AGAINST
COPYRIGHT EXTENSIONS
The extension of copyright terms
beyond their initial boundaries, which is frequently fueled by corporate
lobbying and political power, is one of the most urgent issues in modern
copyright law. Indefinite or prolonged copyright terms can damage cultural
access, stifle innovation, and establish corporate monopolies over creative
works, even if the goal of copyright is to give authors financial incentives
while eventually enhancing society through the public domain. In accordance
with international standards like the Berne Convention and the Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, India's Copyright
Act, 1957, offers a set period of copyright protection. However, as shown in
nations like the US and the EU, there is rising fear that corporate interests
and external influences may result in gradual term extensions. India lacks a robust enforcement mechanism to
counteract such influence, in contrast to states that have put checks and
balances in place to avoid needless copyright extensions. Future copyright
extensions run the possibility of being approved without sufficient public
engagement or judicial review in the absence of strong legal protections.
Experiences around the world
demonstrate how corporate lobbying affects copyright extensions. One well-known
example is the United States' Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of
1998, also known as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." For individual
authors, this law increased copyright protection from life plus 50 years to
life plus 70 years, and for corporately held works, it increased it from 75 to
95 years.[20] Corporate
lobbying, especially from The Walt Disney Company, which aimed to maintain sole
control over its profitable properties, including Mickey Mouse, was the main
force behind this extension[21]. Critics
contend that by postponing the release of cultural works into the public domain
and limiting access to creativity and information, the extension primarily
benefited corporations rather than individual producers. Similarly, in response
to demand from the recording industry, Directive 2011/77/EU in the European
Union increased the duration of copyright protection for sound recordings from
50 to 70 years. In actuality, the extension mostly benefited record labels
because the majority of musicians had already transferred their rights to
corporate entities, despite supporters' claims that it was required to
safeguard artists' financial interests[22].
Currently, India's copyright law
protects literary, musical, dramatic, and artistic works for as long as the
author lives plus 60 years, and cinematographic films, sound recordings, and
government works for as long as 60 years after publication. Even while these
periods are fairly balanced, there is an increasing chance that entertainment
conglomerates and global firms will put pressure on the Indian government to
substantially prolong copyright terms. India may have to deal with the
monopolization of cultural works by big businesses, the delayed release of
Indian music, movies, and literature into the public sphere, and judicial
precedents that prioritize corporate rights over public access if copyright
extensions are given without protections. In the absence of robust legal
safeguards to control copyright renewals, Similar to the US and EU, corporate
interests may take precedence over the general welfare in India.
The absence of judicial review of
modifications to copyright duration is one of the main legal flaws in India's
copyright system. Copyright term extensions can be enacted without necessary
court review, unlike constitutional matters, tax laws, or environmental rules.
This makes it simpler for corporate interests to press for favorable revisions.
Legislators can alter copyright terms through executive orders or policy
changes without open review procedures, and the government is not required to
demonstrate that an extension benefits the public interest. Furthermore,
extensions cannot be proactively blocked by courts unless they are contested in
court, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Strong legislative safeguards
are also absent from India's copyright policy making process because major
changes, such as term extensions, are approved without mandated public
engagement. Because of this, decisions are made in an opaque manner, and
copyright rules may be changed without enough discussion or participation from
stakeholders. A lack of different viewpoints in decision-making is further
caused by India's absence of formal public consultation procedures that enable
academics, libraries, creative professionals, and digital rights organizations
to engage in copyright regulation, strengthen legislative supervision. Instead
of letting executive policy decisions dictate copyright law, Parliament should
impose more stringent review procedures prior to authorizing any modifications
to the copyright duration, guarantee public disclosure of lobbying efforts by
corporations seeking term extensions, and require multiple rounds of
legislative approval.[23]
Policymakers would have to reevaluate the effects of copyright extensions and
decide if they are still in the public interest over time in order to use this
method.[24]
The World Trade Organization's (WTO)
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement
establishes the minimal requirements for copyright and other forms of
intellectual property protection. The period of copyright protection for
literary and creative works must be at least the author's lifetime plus fifty
years, according to Article 12 of TRIPS. Countries are permitted to offer
lengthier protection periods in accordance with their national rules, even
though TRIPS sets a minimum threshold. The copyright term of life plus 60 years
is now provided by India's Copyright Act, 1957, which goes beyond the TRIPS
minimum requirement[25]. There
have been arguments over whether India should shorten its copyright term to
life plus 50 years in order to better conform to TRIPS rules and avoid needless
extensions that prioritize corporate interests above public access, given the
global debates surrounding the limitation of excessive copyright terms.
However, there are a number of legal, financial, and global commerce issues
with shortening the copyright period. This section examines the legal
difficulties of bringing Indian copyright law into compliance with its
international commitments under WTO agreements, the possible economic effects
of such a shift, and whether TRIPS permits India to shorten its copyright term.
Although TRIPS requires a minimum copyright term of life plus fifty years, it
does not forbid nations from shortening their terms to this level. Because of
the agreement's policy flexibility, member countries can modify their copyright
regulations to strike a balance between the rights of authors and the general
welfare. However, there are worries that the bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements India has signed with other countries may make the reduction of the
copyright term from life plus 60 years to life plus 50 years vulnerable. The
overall economic impact would probably help the public domain and cultural
growth by striking a better balance between private incentives and public
access, notwithstanding the opposition of large corporations and content
owners.[26]
LEGAL
CHALLENGES AND HARMONIZATION WITH INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
The United States and the European
Union, two of India's most powerful trading partners, may exert pressure on
India through trade negotiations or WTO proceedings if it shortens its
copyright term. For instance, the U.S. has continuously pushed for longer
copyright terms in its bilateral and regional trade agreements, such as the United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which enforces a life plus 70 years
copyright term. If India shortens its term, it may face trade barriers or
retaliatory measures from countries with strong copyright lobbies, especially
in the publishing, music, and film industries.[27]
India needs to make it clear that a life plus 50-year term is legally
acceptable under TRIPS in order to maintain compliance with international
commitments and advance fair copyright laws. In order to avoid excessive
pressure from other countries looking to impose longer copyright terms, it
should also participate in WTO negotiations. Instead than extending copyright
monopolies, domestic legal reforms could support creators through alternate
types of compensation, such government subsidies or broader moral rights. In
order to resolve this matter, India should assess the financial effects of
shortening the copyright period, work with global parties to avoid trade
disputes, and fortify its own copyright laws to guarantee that authors maintain
their financial and ethical rights protections even after copyright expires.
India can ensure compliance with TRIPS and WTO obligations while aligning its
copyright laws with international best practices by adopting a strategic
strategy.
CONCLUSION
There are serious moral, legal, and
financial issues with the everlasting copyright controversy. Extending
copyright protection indefinitely runs the risk of limiting public access to
knowledge and inhibiting innovation, even though copyright laws are intended to
reward artists and encourage creativity. Excessive copyright clauses, however,
lead to monopolies that frequently favor businesses over individual artists.
Therefore, striking a balance between defending the rights of authors and
guaranteeing that creative works are accessible to a wider audience is crucial.
India has thus far opposed the drive for eternal copyright, in contrast to
other nations where corporate lobbying has led to numerous copyright renewals.
This position is still being contested, nevertheless, by persistent pressures
from the global economy and changing digital environments. There is growing
fear that further extension of copyright periods could limit access to
information and cultural works by establishing a de facto everlasting copyright
system. A more sustainable and balanced strategy to copyright protection is
needed to address these issues.India should prioritize enhancing moral rights,
extending fair use clauses, and putting in place legislative protections
against capricious copyright extensions rather than perpetually extending the
copyright period. By strengthening moral rights under Section 57 of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957, authors will be able to keep their reputations and stop
their works from being misused even after copyright has expired. In the case of
copyright renewals, enforcing more stringent parliamentary and judicial
oversight would also stop excessive corporate influence on legislation This
balance is not met by perpetual copyright since it stifles innovation, stunts the
expansion of the public domain, and favors corporations at the expense of
others. India should implement a progressive copyright policy that upholds
authorial rights without establishing legal monopolies in place of unlimited
renewals. India can create a copyright system that benefits the public and
economy by guaranteeing a well-organized legal framework that includes moral
rights enhancement, fair use expansion, and stringent control on copyright term
extensions. By doing this, the nation can safeguard intellectual property while
encouraging innovation, information exchange, and cultural development for next
generations.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Yuan, Should Small and Large Information Economies
Have the Same Duration of Copyright? (2009)
[2] Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Public Interest in Intellectual
Property Laws, 55 J. Indian L. Inst. 476, 503 (2013)
[3] Upendra Baxi, Copyright Law and Justice in India, 28
J. Indian L. Inst. 497, 540 (1986),
[4] R. Anthony Reese, Copyright Term Extension and the
Scope of Congressional Copyright Power: Eldred v. Ashcroft, 7 J. WORLD INTELL.
PROP. 5 (January 2004).
[5] Arthur Miller, Copyright Term Extension: Boon for
American Creators and the American Economy, 45 J. Copyright Soc’y 319 (1997).
[6] Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak &
Anr. AIR 2008 SC 809
[7] The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the
University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr. 233
(2016) DLT 279:
[8] Shamnad Basheer et al., Exhausting Copyright and
Promoting Access to Education: An Empirical Take, 17 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 335,
338 (2012).
[9] Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law,
Univ. of Cambridge, Review of the Economic Evidence Relating to an Extension of
the Term of Copyright in Sound Recordings (2017)
[10] Upendra Baxi, The Law of Intellectual Property:
Copyright Law in India (forthcoming, 1988).
[11] Jayashree Watal, Intellectual Property Rights in the
WTO and Developing Countries 295, 300 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).
[12] Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi & Rokiah Alavi, In
Search for Support for the Extension of Copyright Term under the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement: A Preliminary Study of the Malaysian Music Industry, 16
J. INT'l TRADE L. & POL'y 34 (2017).
[13] J. Griffin, The Economic Impact of Copyright, Public
Knowledge (2017)
[14] Anjali Raj, Moral Rights of the Author in Copyright
Laws in India: A Paradigm Shift, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2022).
[15] Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India 117 (2005) DLT
717.
[16] Stan J. Liebowitz & Stephen Margoolis, Seventeen
Famous Economists Weigh in on Copyright: The Role of Theory, Empirics, and
Network Effects, 18 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 435, 457 (2005).
[17] Raman Mittal, Whether Indian Law Allows Parallel
Imports of Copyrighted Works: An Investigation, 55 J. Indian L. Inst. 504, 521
(2013)
[18] I.P.L. Png & Q.H. Wang, Copyright Law and the
Supply of Creative Work: Evidence from the Movies (2009),
[19] UK Intellectual Property Office, Impact Assessment of
Proposed Directive to Extend the Term of Copyright Protection for Performers
and Sound Recordings, UK Intellectual Property Office (2010).
[20] Hank Brown & David Miller, Copyright Term
Extension: Sapping American Creativity, 44 J. COPYRIGHT SOC'y U.S.A. 94 (Winter
1996).
[21] Christina N. Gifford, The Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act, 30 U. MEM. L. REV. 363 (Winter 2000)
[22] Dennis S. Karjala, Judicial Review of Copyright Term
Extension Legislation, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 199 (Fall 2002).
[23] E. Rappaport, Copyright Term Extension: Estimating
the Economic Values, Congressional Research Service (May 11, 1998)
[24] John Schulman, International Copyright in the United
States: A Critical Analysis, 19 Law & Contemp. Probs. 141, 155 (1954)
[25] David Touve, Innovation at the Edge: Making Sense of
Opportunity at the Boundary of Technology and Copyright (June 2012)
[26] Abraham Drassinower, Taking User Rights Seriously, in
In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law 467, 472 (Michael
Geist ed., 2005).
[27] Ruth Towse, The Quest for Evidence on the Economic
Effects of Copyright Law, 37 Cambridge J. Econ. 1187, 1202 (2013).
[1] M. Yuan, Should Small and Large Information Economies
Have the Same Duration of Copyright? (2009)
[2] Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Public Interest in Intellectual
Property Laws, 55 J. Indian L. Inst. 476, 503 (2013)
[3] Upendra Baxi, Copyright Law and Justice in India, 28
J. Indian L. Inst. 497, 540 (1986),
[4] R. Anthony Reese, Copyright Term Extension and the
Scope of Congressional Copyright Power: Eldred v. Ashcroft, 7 J. WORLD INTELL.
PROP. 5 (January 2004).
[5] Arthur Miller, Copyright Term Extension: Boon for
American Creators and the American Economy, 45 J. Copyright Soc’y 319 (1997).
[6] Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak &
Anr. AIR 2008 SC 809
[7] The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the
University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr. 233
(2016) DLT 279:
[8] Shamnad Basheer et al., Exhausting Copyright and
Promoting Access to Education: An Empirical Take, 17 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 335,
338 (2012).
[9] Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law,
Univ. of Cambridge, Review of the Economic Evidence Relating to an Extension of
the Term of Copyright in Sound Recordings (2017)
[10] Upendra Baxi, The Law of Intellectual Property:
Copyright Law in India (forthcoming, 1988).
[11] Jayashree Watal, Intellectual Property Rights in the
WTO and Developing Countries 295, 300 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).
[12] Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi & Rokiah Alavi, In
Search for Support for the Extension of Copyright Term under the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement: A Preliminary Study of the Malaysian Music Industry, 16 J.
INT'l TRADE L. & POL'y 34 (2017).
[13] J. Griffin, The Economic Impact of Copyright, Public
Knowledge (2017)
[14] Anjali Raj, Moral Rights of the Author in Copyright
Laws in India: A Paradigm Shift, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2022).
[15] Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India 117 (2005) DLT
717.
[16] Stan J. Liebowitz & Stephen Margoolis, Seventeen
Famous Economists Weigh in on Copyright: The Role of Theory, Empirics, and
Network Effects, 18 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 435, 457 (2005).
[17] Raman Mittal, Whether Indian Law Allows Parallel
Imports of Copyrighted Works: An Investigation, 55 J. Indian L. Inst. 504, 521
(2013)
[18] I.P.L. Png & Q.H. Wang, Copyright Law and the
Supply of Creative Work: Evidence from the Movies (2009),
[19] UK Intellectual Property Office, Impact Assessment of
Proposed Directive to Extend the Term of Copyright Protection for Performers
and Sound Recordings, UK Intellectual Property Office (2010).
[20] Hank Brown & David Miller, Copyright Term
Extension: Sapping American Creativity, 44 J. COPYRIGHT SOC'y U.S.A. 94 (Winter
1996).
[21] Christina N. Gifford, The Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act, 30 U. MEM. L. REV. 363 (Winter 2000)
[22] Dennis S. Karjala, Judicial Review of Copyright Term
Extension Legislation, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 199 (Fall 2002).
[23] E. Rappaport, Copyright Term Extension: Estimating
the Economic Values, Congressional Research Service (May 11, 1998)
[24] John Schulman, International Copyright in the United
States: A Critical Analysis, 19 Law & Contemp. Probs. 141, 155 (1954)
[25] David Touve, Innovation at the Edge: Making Sense of
Opportunity at the Boundary of Technology and Copyright (June 2012)
[26] Abraham Drassinower, Taking User Rights Seriously, in
In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law 467, 472 (Michael
Geist ed., 2005).
[27] Ruth Towse, The Quest for Evidence on the Economic
Effects of Copyright Law, 37 Cambridge J. Econ. 1187, 1202 (2013).
Article Information
THE ETHICS OF PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT: SHOULD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EVER BE PERMANENT?
Authors: ARYA P
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/03
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.