[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Agreed. That's the real problem with copyright today.

Originally copyright was just fourteen years. Long enough for the creator of a
work to make some money with it, but not a bottomless pit of revenue for his
life and the lives of his descendants. After fourteen years, he had to create
something new if he wanted to continue making money. Which is reasonable,
since a house painter or an accountant only makes money for the work when he
does it, not for a lifetime thereafter.

But corporate interests have changed that. Copyright would be perpetual today
if it weren't for the fact that the U.S. Constitution says that it must be for
"a limited time." Unfortunately, the Constitution didn't put any upper limit
on that limited time, and it keeps getting extended.

It's fair to let an artist profit from his work for fourteen years. It's not
fair to give him or his assigns a free ride for his lifetime, plus the
lifetimes of his descendants. Nobody else gets to work once and profit
forever, why should artists be allowed to?

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

At least patents expire in 17 years. That's ten times faster than copyrights.

However, software patents are a perversion of the whole notion of patents. So
are genetic patents.

Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated.

They don't even benefit inventors or artists in many cases. The patents and
copyrights end up being held by corporations, and benefit shareholders who
have never done anything more in life than buy a few shares of stock.

The abuse of musicians is particularly flagrant, but others are abused as
well.

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

The middlemen are making all the money. A copyright doesn't bring anything to
an artist who is dead, but it remains in force.