Copyright Pirates Face Crackdown

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6214108.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6214108.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Copyright criminals must face far tougher regulation to protect the entertainment industry, a report says. The Gowers Report was commissioned by the government to look at modernising UK copyright laws for the digital age. While it proposes new powers against copyright infringement, it also says private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player. It also recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended. Former newspaper editor Andrew Gowers said piracy and counterfeiting was probably the biggest challenge the intellectual property (IP) system faced. The report estimates 20% of the entertainment industry's turnover was lost to illegal copying and says tougher enforcement is a vital part of reform."</i><br /><br />While I am fine with this in principle, we hear of reports, more often than not, that the authorities go after some consumers and end users (young teens, kids, moms, etc) than trying to figure out the main perpetrators of ripping and sharing copyrighted materials. This just leads to bad press for them and doesn't actually seem to reduce the amount of copyrighted material on the net.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Cool. Let's start punishing more severely, and let's start with Edward Bronfman of Warner Music.

See, Mr. Bronfman believes everyone else should be sued out of every last penny of their life savings for piracy, while his own children only deserve a stern talking to.

Let's set the example starting with all the people doin' the suin'.

[whydidnt]

While it proposes new powers against copyright infringement, it also says private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player. It also recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended. Former newspaper editor Andrew Gowers said piracy and counterfeiting was probably the biggest challenge the intellectual property (IP) system faced. The report estimates 20% of the entertainment industry's turnover was lost to illegal copying and says tougher enforcement is a vital part of reform."


While at least they think we should be able to maintain fair use rights. Interesting that a newspaper publisher is put in charge of of a commission to study copyrights, since newspapers have also been trying to get laws changed to protect old business models, just as hard as music and movie companies have. Hardly fair and impartial in my mind.

I am also relieved :roll: that they decided against extending copyright beyond 50 years. Give me a BREAK!! It should be reduced to about 3 years to be realistic. Name one other profession that can get paid for work done 50 years ago. 8O

As far as the 20% figure, we have heard these huge numbers thrown about for years now but all of us know it's just a bunch of malarkey. Did the study take into account how music CD's are about the ONLY technology item ever released that have grown more expensive rather than cheaper over time, and what affect the seriously insane pricing policies the industry imposes has had on sales or lack thereof?

[Vincent Ferrari]

I am also relieved :roll: that they decided against extending copyright beyond 50 years. Give me a BREAK!! It should be reduced to about 3 years to be realistic. Name one other profession that can get paid for work done 50 years ago. 8O

Copyright has nothing to do with getting paid, it solely means you own the work. There's no reason you shouldn't own the copyright to something you create for all eternity. It's your work, after all.

Let's flip it around. Let's say you build yourself a house. You live in it. Should I be able to kick you out after three years because no one should have a right to have a home for 50 years? And if you rent it, should you only get rent for 3 years because you're earning income off something 50 years old?

Obviously not.

The problem with Copyright is that there seems to be less and less common sense with regards to both fair use and what constitutes an actual violation of Copyright. The length of something being copyrighted is not even close to being the actual problem.

[whydidnt]

Copyright has nothing to do with getting paid, it solely means you own the work. There's no reason you shouldn't own the copyright to something you create for all eternity. It's your work, after all.

Let's flip it around. Let's say you build yourself a house. You live in it. Should I be able to kick you out after three years because no one should have a right to have a home for 50 years? And if you rent it, should you only get rent for 3 years because you're earning income off something 50 years old?


This is a perfect example of how copyright has been twisted and misunderstood over the years. Your example makes no sense at all. In the case of the house it is a physical item that you are charging for, not for the labor used to build it. It can't be easily or freely duplicated or shared, without considerable investment in time and money. However, thoughts and ideas certainly can and should be. In your example, while you are renting it out, you will need to continue to pay any laborers who worked on it, why not they helped create it, don't they "own" that labor? While you're at it you probably need to give a royalty to Black &amp; Decker, you probably used their tools to create the property.

Copyright was invented as a way to provide incentive for musicians, artists, authors, etc. to create new works - NOT to provide them a permanent or semi-permanent monopoly on their works. I ask you this, if copyright laws only provided 3 years worth of "protection" do you think we would see less people wanting to be musicians, authors, etc? I doubt it. We may see fewer companies such as Universal, Warner Bros. etc., since they no longer are given a government granted monopoly on content. However, people who want to entertain will still entertain, and probably still make a good living it at it. It's the talent not the content that we pay to see and listen to.

There is an interesting review of a series of letters between Jefferson and Madison discussing copyright as it was inserted into the US Constitution. Jefferson suggested 19 years. If interested in reading more follow this link: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/23/23214/3438

So perhaps I could be persuaded by 3 years, but certainly not to 50 years, or perpetuity, for that matter.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Okay, so obviously your main point is that copyright lasts too long (correct me if I'm wrong, btw) and that artists shouldn't have a right to get paid on what they create at some point sooner rather than later.

So let's say copyright is shortened to 3 years.

Logically speaking, what do you think that will do do the price of the media being consumed now? Books, dvd's, cd's... If a company knows that when it creates something, what do you think the baseline price will be on a CD if a record company knows they have to recoup all their costs in 3 years or it'll be in the public domain?

Think about it. The prices are artificially high as they are. You wanna add more fuel to that fire by shortening copyright terms?

Sorry but that's silly.

Secondly, I'd like to know what type of content you create and how you license it. I do podcasts, a blog, play 3 instruments, and do photography. I also have a novel out in the market which I've been selling for a year. The novel is copyrighted and if someone buys it at any point, I'd like to earn the money for that sale because I wrote the book. ALL of my other content is CC licensed for non-commercial use with attribution.

Now that we know where I stand and why, let's see what your background is. I just want to see if it's someone with a vested interest in content creation or someone like Cory Doctorow who thinks everything should just be out there free forever. Or somewhere in between.

[whydidnt]

Okay, so obviously your main point is that copyright lasts too long (correct me if I'm wrong, btw) and that artists shouldn't have a right to get paid on what they create at some point sooner rather than later.

Actually I believe artists should be paid for there work, just not for reselling the same thing for fifty years. To use your house argument. If I build the house, I can live in it forever if I chose, but as soon as I sell it, it is now owned by someone else to do as they want with it. I can't resell it 50 times, or 50 years from now. Why should you be paid multiple times for your work?

So let's say copyright is shortened to 3 years.

Logically speaking, what do you think that will do do the price of the media being consumed now? Books, dvd's, cd's... If a company knows that when it creates something, what do you think the baseline price will be on a CD if a record company knows they have to recoup all their costs in 3 years or it'll be in the public domain?

Actually, I would imagine a record company probably captures about 90% of their revenue for a CD within 3 years of release. Probably 50% within the first year. I have no facts on this, but records typically sell in largest volumes upon release. In many cases you can't even BUY a CD 5 years after release because it is know longer produced, since it's not profitable for the record company to do so. This means that the copyright has effectively prevented anyone from acquiring works 5 years after produced. There are instances today where movies and music created in the 60's are no longer commercially available and it's impossible to recover those items due to "copyright" law.

Think about it. The prices are artificially high as they are. You wanna add more fuel to that fire by shortening copyright terms?

Sorry but that's silly.

Actually the opposite would happen, if there was more free content, record companies would have to offer cheaper and better options to earn money, so the price would come down. It's silly to think anyone would pay more for a CD when there would be plenty of freely available music around.

Artists today are not the primary beneficiary of the long copyright laws, it's the corporations that control the content. If the copyright law was 3 years or 5 years, or whatever, people are still going to create content, but they will make their money not buy selling CD's, but by performing in concerts, adverstisements, etc. People don't pay $200 for an Elton John concert ticket because it's the only way they can hear "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road". They pay $200 because they want to see Elton John perform that song.

The novel is copyrighted and if someone buys it at any point, I'd like to earn the money for that sale because I wrote the book.

Who's to say you won't? How about releasing an update at the end of the copyright period that provided additional value and incentive for someone to purchase from you or your publisher? As I mentioned, perhaps 3 years is too short, but 50 is certainly too long.


Now that we know where I stand and why, let's see what your background is. I just want to see if it's someone with a vested interest in content creation or someone like Cory Doctorow who thinks everything should just be out there free forever. Or somewhere in between.

Actually, I work for a software services company that writes and sells software and related services. However, the reality of our software, like most is that it has little true value 10 years after release. This is because we have typically sold a newer version of software, with more features/enhancements, etc. to our client in that time frame. Since I'm in sales, I benefit the most from our "adding" value to the software, either by providing services to compliment the software, or by adding new features that allow me to see upgrades to our clients.

As stated above, I believe in "some" copyright protection, but 50 years is entirely unrealistic. It's amazing to me when I hear arguments about owning ideas "forever". Imagine if Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. had owned their ideas "forever". It's quite likely we would have never heard of any of them, as the ideas couldn't and wouldn't have been shared. How did Beethoven survive and why did he continue to create music? The first copyright laws weren't passed until well after he started creating his music. If you are saying that people won't create content without copyright protections, I think history provides proof to the opposite. If you are saying that you think people should be paid for their artistic work, I agree. I just don't think people should be paid today for work they did 50 years ago. Just like I don't get paid this year for sales I made 3 years ago.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Who's to say you won't? How about releasing an update at the end of the copyright period that provided additional value and incentive for someone to purchase from you or your publisher? As I mentioned, perhaps 3 years is too short, but 50 is certainly too long.

Under your idea, I'd have to keep updating it for all eternity, lest someone put the exact same thing out for free and compete against the product I produce and try to make money on. From my point of view, that's completely unfair. If someone wants to buy my novel 12 years down the road, why shouldn't they be able to?

Artists today are not the primary beneficiary of the long copyright laws, it's the corporations that control the content. If the copyright law was 3 years or 5 years, or whatever, people are still going to create content, but they will make their money not buy selling CD's, but by performing in concerts, adverstisements, etc. People don't pay $200 for an Elton John concert ticket because it's the only way they can hear "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road". They pay $200 because they want to see Elton John perform that song.

Most people don't pay $200 to see Elton John. They pay the $20 for a CD to hear him. People will still create content, but they can't make money off it anymore unless they do it in the limited scope you decide. I think it's silly. If I produce something and people want to buy it when I'm 80, I should still be able to earn money on it. That being said, when I die, if I'm the copyright holder, the rights transferring or ending wouldn't be a bad idea. Frankly, you have a stronger case with that argument than everything being in the public domain at some arbitrary point in time.

Since I'm in sales, I benefit the most from our "adding" value to the software, either by providing services to compliment the software, or by adding new features that allow me to see upgrades to our clients.

Software is a unique thing. I can't add value to a book by adding a toolbar or a new feature. A story is a story. I could keep releasing new editions with different covers and call it a better version, but that smacks of being disingenuine, much like the software industry does (Word 2000 v. Word 2002 is a prime example).

It's amazing to me when I hear arguments about owning ideas "forever". Imagine if Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. had owned their ideas "forever".

You can't copyright an idea. You can bring up every single great artist in history, but it does nothing to further your point. The argument you keep making is that ideas don't get out if something's copyrighted. That's not even remotely true.

Ever read a book by (insert favorite author here)? Their ideas got out there. Ever listened to a cd on a radio station? I have. That's still copyrighted. You seem to have this idea that copyrighting something locks it away in a dark closet and that's simply not true. Like I said, we need more fair use, not less copyright. If everything were to suddenly open up to reasonable levels, and people had the right to take their DvD and place shift it to every portable player, no one would care about the copyright because they would have fair use of the dvd. But if you bought that DVD, why shouldn't the company who made it make money on the sale? If they produced it 20 years ago, and you bought it today, why not allow them to make the money today?

It just seems like an artificial limit set for no other reason than "they have enough money" or some other vague logic. If I produce something, I should have the right to make money on it as long as it makes money. There's nothing unfair or wrong about that.

[whydidnt]

Well, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this...

You seem to think that because you "created" something, a book in this case, that you have the inalienable right to own and profit from it forever. I disagree, and point to the fact that this right you claim did not exist in any legal form up until about 300 years ago. Yet, somehow society survived, artists were paid and continued to produce art.

My opinion is that the work you and other artists do is no more important than the work anyone else does, and because of that should be be granted an unreasonable monopoly to that work for extended periods of time.

As far as my bringing up every artist in history, it DOES prove my point. copyright law was created to incent people to create new content, the fact that artists thrived for thousands of years without copyright protection proves that it is NOT necessary for content creators to make money and thrive. It simply provides an artificial, government created monopoly, and one the US's founding fathers thought very carefully about before allowing in our constitution. Since that time the right has been greatly expanded and increased well beyond the scope imagined by those people.

And I suggest you ask Elton John if he makes more money from concerts or CD sales, which is what this discussion really boils down to.

[Vincent Ferrari]

copyright law was created to incent people to create new content, the fact that artists thrived for thousands of years without copyright protection proves that it is NOT necessary for content creators to make money and thrive.

That's an inherently weak argument. Artists thrived? Did they?

Which one got rich off their work being mass produced? If I remember correctly, no one was selling recordings of Mozart, and people weren't making prints of DaVinci's work. Oh sure, if they sold one work they made a fortune, but we're not in the "sell one" economy with art anymore dude.

Copyright law was NOT created to incent people to create new content. It was created to make sure that if there was ever a dispute over content, the person who owned it could claim ownership and you wouldn't have, for example, someone copying off a great work of literature and selling it for their own profit. If I write a book, why should you make anything selling my work if I don't consent to it?

My opinion is that the work you and other artists do is no more important than the work anyone else does, and because of that should be be granted an unreasonable monopoly to that work for extended periods of time.

I don't understand what's unreasonable about it. It's my work and I'm selling it to make money for my family. You want me to have to stop selling my book, no matter how popular it is, because I shouldn't be able to profit from it. Your main reason amounts to "because it's unreasonable."

I guess it's easy to think that way when you're nothing more than a salesperson and your product has no value after a few years. Some content, however, will always have value, and if someone makes something good, they should have the right to profit from it as long as it continues to make money.

I wouldn't expect someone in sales to understand that, though.

The music problem isn't about copyright, it's about fairuse. Any argument to the contrary is silly.

[whydidnt]

I guess it's easy to think that way when you're nothing more than a salesperson and your product has no value after a few years. Some content, however, will always have value, and if someone makes something good, they should have the right to profit from it as long as it continues to make money.

I wouldn't expect someone in sales to understand that, though.


I would have expected more from you than to belittle my profession and make it sound as if what i do has no value compared to infinite importance of what you do. I guess someone who does nothing more than writes books for a living wouldn't understand the work others do, though. :roll:

Edit: I should add, it's always easy to see when someone starts to lose an argument -- it's usually when they start name calling and degrading the one they are debating with. Sorry I got under your skin so much that you felt the need to trash what I do for a living.

Finally, If I build cars for a living and I build really good cars and they last for one hundred years, how many times do I get paid for the car? Once, not every time someone drives the car, not every time someone builds an another car, but once. Why is what you do so much more important?

[Jason Dunn]

I've pretty much skipped most of this exchange, because I don't have the time or patience to wade through the long messages (no offence), but I'll chime in and say this much: I don't believe in "eternal copyright" such as what Walt Disney gets off Mickey Mouse, but on the other hand a three year copyright is too short and will stifle creativity if creative types know that after three years people can take their work and use it any way they want.

I wrote a book about four years ago (Faster Smarter Digital Video (http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Smarter-Digital-Video-Jason/dp/0735618739/sr=8-1/qid=1165529536/ref=sr_1_1/002-2382069-4550401?ie=UTF8&s=books)) and while some of it is certainly outdated, much of it was of a general nature and is still useful today to someone working with digital video. I worked 12 hour days writing that book - I did 300 pages in about 8 weeks - and if you're telling me that someone should have the right to take the contents of that book and do whatever they want with it (re-publish it themselves, post it all online, etc.) then I'd have to disagree with that pretty strongly. ;-) Am I making any money off it now? No. Would I release it into the public IP arena if I could? Sure. But that would be my CHOICE as the creator of the content, not something I'd be forced into doing by a three year copyright law.

I believe that if a musician writes a song - say, "Mrs. Robinson", and a movie producer wants to use that song in a movie, the musician (if he's still alive) should get paid for the commercial use of that song. If someone's going to make money by using your creative work, as the creator you should get paid something for that work. Once you're read though, I think copyright should expire - I don't believe in someone's children getting money from something their parents did for all eternity...

whydidnt, I'm curious, do you create content? Are you a writer, painter, musician, or anything of the sort? I kind of think that content creators tend to have a different view of this than other people do...

[whydidnt]

Nope, I don't create content, at least not at this point in my life. Maybe some day.

I mentioned in subsequent post that perhaps 3 years isn't long enough, but I stand by my position that 50 years is far too long. The argument about working 12 hour days for 8 weeks doesn't change my mind. Many of us, myself included, have experienced that type of schedule in our careers, and it didn't guarantee us future payment for that work, of future employment for that matter.

I guess I still don't understand what makes "creative work" more valuable than non-creative work? Why should creative work be provided a 50 year government protection?

In any event, simply because I don't create content doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. And it also doesn't mean that someone should take that as right to take potshots and insult me and my profession. I am quite disappointed in the tone this debate turned to.

[Jason Dunn]

I guess I still don't understand what makes "creative work" more valuable than non-creative work? Why should creative work be provided a 50 year government protection?

I think, honestly, that's a question that's almost impossible to answer. When you create something you feel very differently about it than if you just buy something. Are you a parent? I'm not, but I'm willing to bet that a parent feels very differently about his own children than other children, and in a way that isn't easily explained (after all, most people place a very high value on children). A poor example, I know, but it's all I could think of. :-) I don't think this is about dismissing the value of non-creative work either - or it certainly shouldn't be at any rate!

In any event, simply because I don't create content doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. And it also doesn't mean that someone should take that as right to take potshots and insult me and my profession. I am quite disappointed in the tone this debate turned to.

I agree that your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's in this thread, and no one should be insulting your profession. But I hope you can also acknowledge that there will be differing opinions between those who create and those who sell the creations of others - not bad differences, just different ways of looking at content. When I look at the books on my wall, I feel something very different when looking at the books I've written versus the books I've purchased.

[whydidnt]

I think, honestly, that's a question that's almost impossible to answer. When you create something you feel very differently about it than if you just buy something. Are you a parent? I'm not, but I'm willing to bet that a parent feels very differently about his own children than other children, and in a way that isn't easily explained (after all, most people place a very high value on children).

I am a parent, and I understand that (boy do I understand that!) :o. I also can understand how one might value something they create much more than a similar object someone else created. However, in the terms of this debate I just don't agree that that value should be given a government protected monopoly for 50 years. Heck, we only get tell our kids what to do for 18! :wink: But I suspect I've probably already beaten that horse to death....



But I hope you can also acknowledge that there will be differing opinions between those who create and those who sell the creations of others - not bad differences, just different ways of looking at content.

Of course, that's what I thought all of the previous posts actually were - a legitimate debate with differing opinions.

[Vincent Ferrari]

In any event, simply because I don't create content doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. And it also doesn't mean that someone should take that as right to take potshots and insult me and my profession. I am quite disappointed in the tone this debate turned to.

I apologize if my tone created that impression. My only intention was to point out that as a salesperson who sells something that admittedly has little value 10 years after its made, your view of copyright would almost have to be different than mine because I hope to still be making money on my novel (not likely but I would like the opportunity, at least) 10 years from now.

As Jason noted, it's different when you don't produce content.

I don't like the big guys hoarding content, and I don't like the restrictions on fair use, but copyright itself isn't a source of the problem, misinterpretation of what can actually be copyrighted or what type of "infringement" you can sue for probably is.

I'm sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intention at all.

[cameron]

Finally, If I build cars for a living and I build really good cars and they last for one hundred years, how many times do I get paid for the car? Once, not every time someone drives the car, not every time someone builds an another car, but once. Why is what you do so much more important?

whydidnt,

Sorry - I came into this discussion a bit late. While I understand the point you are trying to make above - there is a fundamental distinction that I don't think you are taking into account.

When you buy a CD - you, the buyer, are now entitled to the ownership and rights of what you bought in perpetuity. Those rights are granted to you - not to anyone else. When you buy a car - only one person can drive that car at any given moment in time. Conceptually - these two are exactly the same thing. If someone else wants the same car - they have to buy it from the manufacturer. Why aren't you arguing that after three years the manufacturer should have to provide free cars to anyone who wants one?

I've obviously asked a stupid question. The reason that makes no sense is that it costs money for the manufacturer to make the car, right? Ignore R&amp;D costs, each car has costs associated with it. With IP it's different. There aren't generally any concrete costs (ignore the costs of physical media and distribution for this discussion). I think we would all agree that the car maker is entitled to a reasonable profit on the car, if the maker didn't get a reasonable profit there wouldn't be an incentive to make the car.

So how do we compensate the creators of IP? In Jason's example, he worked roughly 480 hours in writing his book. What's appropriate compensation? Who pays the compensation? The first buyer of the book? That's obviously ridiculous, as each buyer receives the same utility, each buyer should pay the same cost. Is three years enough time to recoup the cost - maybe, maybe not. Look at Dan Brown - DaVinci code wasn't his first book. He published what - 4 previous books? In your argument, he writes a book that doesn't sell - finally, 4 years later he writes a blockbuster and everyone wants his earlier book. What you are suggesting is that he now shouldn't get paid for writing that earlier book.

Your comments on the corporations controlling the market is spot on and is a system that ultimately will break down - however that point is not relevant to a discussion on copyright law. That's just a business decision made by the artist.

To your comment on compensation - you do get compensated for the work you perform. I'm hoping that, if you work the same 480 hours that Jason worked in his prior example, you get paid appropriately. Your work is off a different character - the value you provide is concrete to someone today - so they pay you today. The value an artist creates is not necessarily of value today.

The discussion on time period is valuable - what's the right period? I have no idea - as a creator of content I would argue for the longest - but that's probably not right.

[whydidnt]

Once again I'm going to go back to the reason we have copyright -- directly from the US Constitution:

Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The reason we have copyright law is to make people want to create new things. Copyright laws were not created to keep people from using your creations forever, or too even make sure you were paid for them. It was created to incent you want to want to create new and better things, as I mentioned in a previous post.

It seems obvious to me, that the way we make it so you would want to chose a profession dependent on selling works of art. It's by making it financially worth your while to do so. Thus an exclusive, limited exclusivity to your work. Now are you all telling me that if the copyright law provided less than 50 years protection, none of you would have published your books, pictures, etc? I find that difficult to believe. My point is that the current window of 50 years protection is far longer than necessary to fulfill the purpose of the law in the first place. Now if you tell me three is too short, and you would not publish books because of that, fine. I could be persuaded that 3 years is far too short. But I use the Dan Brown example you provided - he didn't sell many books until the DaVinci Code was released, yet he still decided he wanted to create new things. So obviously even though he wasn't highly compensated for his previous work, he still was creating. On the flip side, if the day he released the DaVinci code, 5 other publishing houses could publish it and not pay him, obviously he wouldn't have much incentive to write, unless he just plain liked righting. I understand the need for balance....

So how long is reasonable for copyright to do what it was originally created to do? I pose that question to those of you that create content protected by copyright law. How long does the protection need to be for you to continue to want to create new things?

It's interesting that of all the things the founding fathers could have included in the constitution, it's one of the few specific directions given to congress, and it explicitly spells out why we should have copyright, and it's not to keep others from profiting from your works.

[Jason Dunn]

So how long is reasonable for copyright to do what it was originally created to do? I pose that question to those of you that create content protected by copyright law. How long does the protection need to be for you to continue to want to create new things?

The lifetime of the creator. The problem is that when corporations buy the rights to something, corporations live forever...

[whydidnt]

So how long is reasonable for copyright to do what it was originally created to do? I pose that question to those of you that create content protected by copyright law. How long does the protection need to be for you to continue to want to create new things?

The lifetime of the creator. The problem is that when corporations buy the rights to something, corporations live forever...

So you are saying that if you only had, say 10 year copyright protection, you would NOT write books, create websites and related content, etc? It wouldn't be worth it to you? The question wasn't what you want, but how long the time frame needs to be to make you want to continue. We know lifetime can't be the answer because you don't have that protection today and still do these things.

[Jason Dunn]

So you are saying that if you only had, say 10 year copyright protection, you would NOT write books, create websites and related content, etc? It wouldn't be worth it to you?

No, I'd still do it, but the content I create is mostly of the time-sensitive type. A review I write of a product will be worthless ten years from now. A musician that writes a song would be a very different matter.

I have no answer that will satisfy you. :-)