There are several common complaints about U.S. copyright law, many of which revolve around the balance between protecting the rights of creators and the public's access to knowledge and culture. Some of the most common complaints include:

1. Length of copyright terms: Critics argue that the current copyright terms (life of the author plus 70 years, or 95/120 years for works of corporate authorship) are excessively long, which can stifle creativity and innovation by keeping works locked away from the public domain for extended periods.

2. Fair use ambiguity: The concept of fair use is essential for allowing limited use of copyrighted material without permission, but its scope and application can be unclear, leading to confusion and potential legal disputes.

3. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): Critics argue that the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions can be overly restrictive, hindering the development of new technologies and stifling legitimate uses of copyrighted works, such as reverse engineering or security research.

4. Overzealous enforcement: Some argue that copyright holders can be overly aggressive in pursuing infringement claims, potentially leading to abuse of the legal system, such as "copyright trolling" or targeting individuals for minor, non-commercial infringements.

5. Orphan works: These are copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or impossible to locate. Current copyright law makes it challenging to use these works legally, which can limit access to culturally valuable materials and impede academic research.

6. Limited exceptions for libraries and educational institutions: Critics contend that current copyright law does not provide enough exceptions for libraries, archives, and educational institutions, making it difficult for them to fulfill their missions to preserve and disseminate knowledge.

7. Lack of formalities: The current copyright system in the U.S. does not require registration or notice of copyright. This can lead to confusion about the copyright status of a work and make it difficult for would-be users to seek permission to use it.

8. Economic implications: Some argue that the current copyright system can hinder innovation and economic growth by creating barriers to the dissemination and use of knowledge, particularly in industries that rely on access to copyrighted works, such as software development or digital media.

These are just a few of the many complaints and concerns that have been raised about U.S. copyright law. The ongoing challenge is to strike a balance between the rights of creators and the public's interest in access to knowledge and culture.

In the United States, copyright laws protect creative works like movies, books, and art. These laws give creators control over their work for a certain period of time. However, some people believe that copyright laws are too strict, especially when it comes to how long they last.

One example is Disney and its famous character, Mickey Mouse. Mickey was created in 1928, and under the original copyright laws, he would have entered the public domain in the 1980s. The public domain is a space where anyone can use creative works without needing permission.

But before Mickey's copyright expired, laws changed to extend the time period. Many people think this happened because Disney wanted to keep control of Mickey Mouse. Now, the copyright for Mickey isn't set to expire until 2024.

Critics argue that extending copyright terms like this can limit creativity and access to cultural works. They believe that if copyright laws were shorter, more people could create new stories and art based on characters like Mickey Mouse, which could lead to more innovation and cultural growth.

Fair use ambiguity arises when it's unclear whether a particular use of copyrighted material falls under the fair use doctrine. This lack of clarity can lead to disputes and even lawsuits. Some well-known examples of fair use ambiguity include:

1. Google Books Library Project: Google aimed to create a digital library by scanning millions of books from libraries and providing snippets of texts in search results. Authors and publishers sued Google, claiming copyright infringement. The case ultimately ruled in Google's favor, stating that the project was transformative and constituted fair use.

2. The "Dancing Baby" case: In 2007, a mother uploaded a video of her toddler dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" on YouTube. Universal Music issued a takedown notice, claiming copyright infringement. The mother filed a lawsuit, arguing that her use of the song was fair use. The court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the importance of considering fair use before issuing takedown notices.

3. Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster: During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, artist Shepard Fairey created the iconic "Hope" poster featuring Barack Obama. The Associated Press (AP) claimed Fairey infringed on their copyright, as the poster was based on an AP photograph. The parties eventually settled out of court, but the case raised questions about the boundaries of fair use in artistic expression.

4. The "Hairy Potter" case: In 2003, author J.K. Rowling and her publisher sued a small publisher for distributing an unauthorized guide to the Harry Potter series called "The Harry Potter Lexicon." The court ruled that the guide did not constitute fair use, as it copied too much of Rowling's original work without adding sufficient original commentary or analysis.

These cases illustrate the ambiguity and complexity surrounding the fair use doctrine, which often depends on the specific circumstances and context of each situation.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'s anti-circumvention provisions have been criticized for being overly restrictive and hindering innovation, security research, and legitimate uses of copyrighted works. Some well-known examples include:

1. 2600 Magazine and DeCSS case: In 2000, 2600 Magazine published DeCSS, a software tool that decrypted DVD content, enabling users to play DVDs on non-supported platforms. The movie industry argued that DeCSS violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. The court ruled in favor of the movie industry, which critics argue limited users' ability to use legally purchased DVDs on their preferred platforms.

2. Security research: The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions can limit security researchers' ability to investigate and disclose vulnerabilities in software and systems. For example, in 2005, Sony BMG released music CDs with copy protection software that exposed users' computers to security risks. Researchers who discovered the issue were initially hesitant to disclose their findings due to concerns about violating the DMCA.

3. Jailbreaking: The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions initially criminalized the act of jailbreaking or unlocking smartphones to run unauthorized software or switch carriers. This restriction limited consumers' freedom to use their devices as they saw fit. However, the U.S. Copyright Office granted an exemption in 2010, allowing jailbreaking for smartphones, with periodic reviews and updates.

4. Video game preservation and modification: The DMCA's provisions can make it difficult for gamers and researchers to preserve, study, or modify older video games, particularly those that require online authentication from defunct servers. While the U.S. Copyright Office has granted some exemptions for video game preservation, critics argue that the process is too slow and cumbersome.

5. Accessibility for people with disabilities: The DMCA's provisions can hinder the development and distribution of tools that make copyrighted works more accessible to people with disabilities. For instance, creating software to convert e-books into formats compatible with screen readers for the visually impaired could be considered a violation of the DMCA.

These examples demonstrate how the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions have, in some cases, been criticized for being overly restrictive and stifling innovation, security research, and other legitimate uses of copyrighted works.

Overzealous enforcement of copyright laws occurs when copyright holders aggressively pursue infringement claims, sometimes targeting individuals for minor or non-commercial infringements. Some well-known examples include:

1. RIAA lawsuits against individuals: In the early 2000s, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed lawsuits against thousands of individuals for sharing music files on peer-to-peer networks. Many of these defendants were average users, including minors and people who accidentally shared files. Critics argued that the RIAA's aggressive tactics were excessive and resulted in disproportionate penalties for minor infringements.

2. Viacom vs. YouTube: In 2007, media company Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, alleging massive copyright infringement due to user-uploaded content that included Viacom's copyrighted material. While YouTube eventually won the case, the lawsuit highlighted the challenge of balancing the rights of copyright holders with the potential for overzealous enforcement on platforms hosting user-generated content.

3. Copyright trolling: Some entities, known as copyright trolls, acquire the rights to copyrighted works and aggressively pursue legal claims against alleged infringers, often seeking quick settlements rather than going to trial. A well-known example is Prenda Law, which was accused of targeting individuals for allegedly downloading copyrighted adult films, using intimidation and threats of public embarrassment to pressure defendants into settling.

4. Automated takedown notices: Copyright holders often use automated systems to issue takedown notices for alleged infringements. However, these systems can be imprecise and result in false positives. For example, in 2012, a live stream of a Mars rover landing on NASA's official YouTube channel was taken down due to an automated copyright claim by a news agency, even though the content was in the public domain.

5. Fan-made content: Copyright holders sometimes target fan-made content, such as fan art, fan fiction, or fan films, even when they pose little threat to the original work's commercial value. For example, in 2015, Paramount and CBS sued the creators of the fan film "Star Trek: Axanar," leading to a settlement that imposed restrictions on fan productions.

These examples illustrate instances where overzealous enforcement of copyright laws has been criticized for potentially stifling creativity, chilling free expression, and harming individuals accused of minor or non-commercial infringements.

Orphan works are copyrighted materials whose owners are difficult or impossible to locate, making it challenging to use these works legally. Some well-known examples of problems with orphan works include:

1. The Library of Congress: In 2006, the Library of Congress conducted a study on orphan works and found that they had a substantial impact on various sectors, including libraries, museums, and publishers. In one example, the Library was unable to identify copyright holders for 45% of photographs in a historic photo collection, which prevented the Library from making the images available online.

2. The British Library: The British Library faced similar challenges when they tried to digitize their collection of 19th-century books. They found that approximately 40% of the books were orphan works, which complicated the process of securing permissions to digitize and make the books accessible to the public.

3. Documentary filmmaking: Filmmakers often struggle to secure rights to use orphan works in their documentaries, which can result in incomplete or altered storytelling. For instance, the documentary "Eyes on the Prize," which chronicles the U.S. civil rights movement, faced significant delays in distribution due to issues with orphan works and other licensing challenges.

4. Academic research: Researchers working on historical or cultural topics often encounter orphan works in their research. The inability to secure permission to use these works can impede the progress of research and the dissemination of knowledge. For example, a historian researching early 20th-century advertisements may be unable to publish their findings if they cannot locate copyright holders for the ads.

These examples illustrate the challenges posed by orphan works, which can limit access to culturally valuable materials, hinder academic research, and stifle creative endeavors. Efforts have been made to address the issue of orphan works, such as the U.S. Copyright Office's ongoing study and recommendations for legislative solutions, but the problem persists.