[pwalker8]

I would say that reducing copyright to 14 years would have a positive impact on the vast majority of active musicians. Most musicians make their money from concerts rather than from royalties. Remember it's the recording/performance that's copyrighted in addition to the original song. For every musician, such as the Lennon or McCarthy, who is famous, there are thousands who make a living playing live music, usually covering popular songs.

When I look at the Billboard top 10, I only recognize one artist. Each generation has their own favorites. Do you really think that people are going to stop buying Justin Timberlake music just because they can get the Beatles and the Rolling Stones for free? While free copies of the Beatles and Rolling Stones music, may introduce a whole new generation to their music and keep their music alive, it's not going to take away from the current generation of musicians.

The important thing to remember is that copyright, as mentioned in the article, is a government granted monopoly for the copying of specific works of art. In general, works of art or the expression of an idea is not property in the normal sense of the word. Intellectual property is simply a phrase coined by a lawyer who was trying to convince a jury that his client's idea should be protected. While a specific book may be property, if I make a copy of that book, then the copy is not the same piece of property. That is why an original painting tends to be worth a lot more that the copies made of that painting.