[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

My question was a simple one, and that only half answered it. You think, at minimum, copyright should be until the death of the artist, great. But there's a lot of time beyond that. Do you think it should end at the artist's death? How about 5 years after that? 10 years? 70 years? The heat-death of the universe?

I ask because there's no point in the two of us arguing if we agree on the same point, even if we arrive at that point by different means.

My main premise is that if valuable works are available for free then they undermine the value of newly created works. The paper in that was cited in the original post gave the example of Peter and the Wolf. This work was in the public domain for a period of time. During that time it was performed. It then went back into copyright. At that point many orchestras ceased to perform it. They could not justify spending money on the work when there are other valuable works that are in the public domain. Thus, my primary desire is that valuable works are copyright regardless of when they were created. Given that it may take time for a work to be recognized, I believe that at the minimum the copyright should extend until the author's death.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Maybe one more question: your arguments to Sir Ralph seem to be based on economics, the idea that short copyright somehow undermines capitalism. If there was evidence that current copyright systems in the US are an economic drag (so "undermine capitalism"), would you agree that a shorter copyright period would be appropriate?

I am certainly willing to consider it. However, it strikes me that if a service is freely available, then it will adversely effect the viability of offering such a service at a cost. A good example is the elevator operator. Machines can function as elevator operators, and operate at no cost. On account of this there are no jobs for elevator operators anymore. This is roughly analogous to having large number of valuable works of literature freely available. It reduces the value of a new work. It may not reduce the value to nothing, such as the elevator example, but it certainly reduces the value.

Originally Posted by Quantum Iguana

The ease of copying is an argument to have copyright, but it is not an argument for continually increasing the period of copyright or for eternal copyright, which are really the same thing.

The ease of copying is very relevant to the term of the copyright. If valuable works, regardless of age, are freely available, then they compete economically with newly created works. Given that we can copy works at very little cost, works in the public domain are essentially free. It is very difficult to compete with free products.

Originally Posted by Quantum Iguana

You claimed that copyright needs to be even longer than it is now because there are "many" works which take years to be recognized. But you can site not a single work which was not recognized within 70 years of the death of the author! The copyright period could only be too short to accommodate works which took time to be recognized if and only if works are not recognized within the existing copyright term.

I claim that it is important that works that have value are copyright. Thus, once they have been recognized as valuable they should be copyright. Given that it can take time to recognize the value of such works, I believe that there should be a minimum duration of copyright.

Originally Posted by Quantum Iguana

You keep claiming that the public domain undermines the sale of new books. If that were true, wouldn't we see people flocking to public domain works? Wouldn't English teachers be ecstatic about people reading the classics instead of complaining that people don't read them? People watch new movies a lot more than they watch old public domain movies.

It is true. See my comments above on Peter and the Wolf. It is a fact that people read books that are in the public domain. People also have a limited amount of time to read. Every minute that is spent reading a public domain book, is one that is not spent reading a book that is not in the public domain. It also represents money that is not spent on a newly created book. I am not arguing that no newly created works will be sold, or that people will only read public domain works. I am arguing that the public domain works compete for the time and money of the consumer, and that some consumers choose public domain works over newly created ones.