Copyright "Radicalism" vs. Historical Knowledge

This week's readings were an interesting and enlightening journey into the sordid world of copyrighting and all of the commercial and legal ramifications contained within it. Although, for me, this seemed like yet another chapter of Digital History, which seemed to underline the negative aspects of digital researching and the sensitive and relatively new world of internet politics. Cohen and Rosenzweig give a very eye-opening summarization of copyrights and how all researchers, especially digital historians, need to keep these things in mind when attempting to reproduce or use, in any capacity, any intellectual property without first getting permission.

I always was aware of copyrights,but had never really contemplated on their true significance (with the exception of music "pirating") until reading the chapter and other articles pertaining to this subject. What struck a chord with me in Cohen and Rosenzweig's writings about copyrights was the greedy commercialist aspect when, for exmaple, using or reproducing something strictly for the purpose of educational access. This really bothers me when corporate influences (and,of course,other commercial entities) charge egregious rates for using pictures or portions of publications in order for someone to use them as a tool for explaining or teaching about any given past event. This is understandable when someone wishes to use someones else's writing or artisitc ability for the purpose of making profit, stealing ideas, or compromsing its integrity, but when it is needed for the greater purpose of teaching, then profit should be thrown out of the window.

Even the earlier laws, which gave descendents of let say, for example, a popular musician, the right to that musician's intellectual/artistic property for at least two generations, is just too much.  Nobody should be entitled to someone else's hard work and ability, with the exception of the person who created whatever it is. I say this fully understanding the aspect of American predatory capitalism which allows for the making of profit off of anything, even if that thing is the music or writings of a person who has been dead for over a hundred years. With this being said, I would be naive to think that a talanted writer or musician would not wish to exploit his/her talents for financial gain, but that does not mean that his grandchildren should be able to reap the same fruits of the labor and talents of a deceased realtive. The time allowed to pass before something can be considered public domain is far too long. I just think a clear line needs to be drawn somewhere in this regard.

Another problem for historiansCohen and Rosenzweig mention is that of someone's intellectual property being misappropriated by someone else. This makes me curious as to how often this actually occurs; it should be fairly simple to prove what is one's actual work. It seems to me that if a historian was, for whatever reason, copyrighting research, that this would only prevent the sharing of ideas. Unfortunately, we live in a world where monopolies are not only practiced, but are overtly encouraged. So I guess this creates another problem with copyrighting. Cohen and Rosenzweig, having thier own experience with paying exorbitant rates for publishing historical articles online with the help of copyrighted materials mention, "The New York Times charged us...to publish a 1927 interview with Charles Lindbergh...on a public website..$300 per year, which they touted as  a deep discount  from their standard annual fee of $1,000." 

Since copyrighting intellectual property is going to persist, then the powers that be can at least revise them in a less antiquated manner and will be far more reasonable in its insistence that intellectual property be protected even after the death of the intellectual proprietor. In response to this outdated system of copyright "radicalism", Cohen and Rosenzweig state, "Copyright radicalism in the early twenty-first century has come to mean embracing  an eighteenth-century law." Keeping with their overall support of open access and their dislike of over-the-top copyright exploitation, the two authors did not fail to involve me their progressive mindset on the idea of and pursuant discussion about copyrighting.