>Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuabl

>Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as Often when I see posts like this, I wonder what the posters actually know about copyright. In order to bring any copyright action in the US, your work needs to be registered, which costs a bit more than $5, and also requires sending deposit copies to the the copyright office to be maintained in the library of congress. >3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection. Who cares? Honestly - what difference does it make? Has your macaroni art piece caused unnecessary litigation? are people afraid to make other macaroni sculptures, knowing that you made yours? What have you actually thought about copyright, its incentives, structures, and the creative market, if you are seriously making this assertion in the face of these obvious questions?