[SensualPoet]

I think it's worth a backward glance at the issue of software piracy. In the 1980s, companies created really onerous schemes to "protect" software, including physical "dongles" to ensure the registered user was legit.

Twenty-plus years later, we've figured out that software people value will actually be paid for. Yes, someone, somewhere, will steal it: but it's ok -- and folk who actually pay for it agree -- make it hard to steal and share, without impeding all the legit users from easy install and usage is the best compromise.

Correct me if I am wrong: Microsoft and Apple continue to earn billions on software-based strategies. They can be pirated; but most users pay for the product.

This becomes more complicated the older the "content" is. A couple of days ago, Beethoven enjoyed his 239th birthday. Shouldn't his heirs, and publishers, continue to enjoy royalties when PBS FM plays his songs? What about Bram Stoker's descendants getting a piece of Peter Cushing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Twilight royalities?

The monetization of drug discoveries often does not exceed 20 years before generics can enter the market: are we protecting Stephen King's work the same way? Should Cujo, from 1992, become public domain in 2012? Firestarter was published in 1981 ... soon to be 27 years ago ... should it be free? King is 62: he could live to 2040 making his works public domain in 2110. Who are we protecting? His grandsoons could be dead by then -- and likely would be. Care to speculate on Random House?

Writers brought insights into life in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s ... we have access to those who died young or wrote old. Everyone else: locked away until a publisher or an estate thinks there might be a "market". So: Sherlock Holmes is "free" and Hercule Poirot is not to be unleashed till 2066 ... but their literary lives cross paths. Poirot appeared in 1920 (now PD) in the Mysterious Affair at Styles; Holmes was still solving cases into that late 1920s. Conan Doyle died in 1930; Christie in 1976 ... the "life" of their labours vary radically by author, publisher, geography, fan base.

Are we really concerned to line the pockets of the publisher's great-grandchildren?

Software, and drugs, provide some guidance that the public will embrace: it's a combination of "what have you done for me lately" and "author's/producer's rights/ownership". MGM's Wizard of OZ is 80 years old this year: does Time-Warner deserve royalities still? What about Frank Baum's heirs whose books the film is based upon are deemed "public domain"?

Murky waters. Eventually, some combo of "best before date" and "author living" is likely to be enacted.