Honestly in the debate between the two bloggers (there is another contestant as well over at Matthews blog as well, that he references), they get down to a battle of who Intellectual Property laws were designed to benefit. One claims that Intellectual Property laws are there to aide the consumer, and was developed so that a media can eventually be released for free; and the other says that its designed to aide the artist, and allow them to grow and be able to make a profit off their work.

I fail to see how either of these points are valid or good at all. We have two extremes trying to fight for why they are right and the other is wrong and unfortunately copyright and patent laws are not that black and white… So lets look at this from a real persons point of view.

The current failed copyright system gives a copyright to its owner for their entire life plus 70 years. Clearly this is not for the benefit of the artist, because the artist will not be able to make any gains off those additional 70 years. Thats why the system is flawed, instead of allowing defunct artists music to be put into the public domain so that more people can learn, grow, and build off of it… the current system discourages respecting the late artist by not allowing there to be education based off their work. These laws are, however, in place for the artist.

Matthew also claims that because of the length of this copyright term that art should be released for free, and I feel that it was more of a creative way of twisting words and facts to gather more supporters for your cause (which is admittedly a noble one). We cannot expect artists to release music and not get paid for them, thats why I suggest copyrights, but on a much smaller scale. An artist has the right to make money, and recoup losses from the production of music. However, after a few years the artist’s primary income focuses on live tours and merchandise anyway.

I feel that the reason that drug patents are so short is because the Government realizes that we need short patents to drive innovation. While they would rather neglect artistic innovation, and only embrace being the worlds health care leader. As this shows, not only do short patent times not “kill innovation” as some say it will, but it also drives innovation and can be contributed into the United States great contributions to science.

We cannot be battling any more on black and white issues, and the time is to rally in support of real copyright and patent reform so that we can learn from our medical innovations, and apply that great system to media, and code as well. By allowing people to build off code after 7 years opposed to the rest of your lifetime… we develop better projects. By allowing music to be mixed, we create more innovation in what music is and what it can be.

Whats funny is that the answer to the question is simple:
Who does (current) Intellectual Property Laws help? Management
Who does (current) Intellectual Property Laws hurt? Anyone who wants to learn.