**Copyright is capable of protecting smaller creatives from exploitation by large corporates. What is needed to achieve this on a wider scale are changes within the law and an improvement in access to justice, rather than a complete overhaul of the whole system.** • In general terms, copyright law gives the author of a piece of work private rights over the _expression_ of an idea, rather than the idea itself. For example, copyright law gives the author of a book rights over the exact words used of a book, rather than the idea or theme of the book. • Copyright law has been justifiably criticised for several reasons. One main criticism is that it stifles creativity by placing lengthy terms on the period before the work can enter the public domain. It has also been heavily criticised for being used to encourage monopolies and the exploitation of smaller creatives by larger corporations. For example, individuals often do not have the money to bring forward or defend a copyright claim and so they end up giving up their cases altogether. • However, it should also be acknowledged that copyright provides the opportunity for individuals to profit from their work. If there are no copyright laws at all, through which medium will smaller creators be able to fight for this right? Indeed, the counter-argument is that they are unable to do this even under the present system since corporations have the money to defend such claims. Regardless, taking away a creator’s right to defend any claim at all is counter-intuitive and thus exacerbates the problem. • In light of these issues, we could argue that copyright laws could be reformed in a way that allows works to enter the public domain after a shorter period of time (e.g. immediately after the death of the author rather than [100+ years later](https://reyesfenigeng.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/copyright-terms/)). Furthermore, improving access to justice, rather than abolishing copyright, would be a better way to ensure that smaller creators get the recognition that they deserve. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsNVKetbFDY https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/three-reasons-for-copyright-protection

**Abolishing copyright could allow greater access to important material, which in turn can foster greater innovation and development for our entire world; but it can also make it impossible for artists and other creatives to make a living, so it's very difficult.** With wide dissemination on the internet, copyright is [already becoming](https://ivypanda.com/essays/has-the-digital-age-rendered-copyright-obsolete/) a bit [outdated](https://www.politico.eu/article/copyright-laws-dont-work-in-the-digital-age/), in a way. It can definitely be [hard](https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/copyright-law-and-the-digital-era/) to maintain and enforce in the [era](https://regproject.org/paper/creativity-innovation-unchained-copyright-law-must-updated-digital-age-simplifying/) of widespread availability and reproducibility, although this doesn't mean copyright should be totally abolished, in my opinion. Additionally, if the following things are true: - Ideas, by nature, do not have any exclusivity (two or more people can use the same idea at the same time.) - Lack of copyright [does not always appear](https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=vlr) to have too great of an effect on innovation. - Abolishing copyright could potentially help with the following: - Reducing or abolishing academic copyright could foster more collaboration on ideas and products, meaning more potential progress, since open-source articles and research can be more widely accessed; - Reduced paywalls in general can help more people gain access to cultural sources they arguably have a right to access; - Creativity can be stifled due to the broadness of copyright law; - Copyright laws can be very complicated and unclear, opening up the possibility for companies to abuse them, especially if they have access to lawyers. Then it makes some sense to consider abolishing copyright. However, I do agree that copyright helps protect ideas and actually allows artists/other people dependent on copyright laws to make a living. So it's a tricky mix.

We need copyright so that people get paid for and credited for their ideas, but the way we go about it is wrong. We need to allow fair use, but still make room for royalties. Like, fanfiction shouldn't be blocked, but it also shouldn't be used by companies just because someone liked a few characters and took inspiration to continue the story how they wanted. Still, anyone making money off the works of others and living in luxury while the poor suffer should either give up their money or die. They want to work the poor to death. They should learn to live like us.