duration of copyright

[Tom Olson]

I can see the reasoning behind a copyright that never expires. After all, it is property so why should it expire?

But, on the other hand, the only reason why copyrights are valuable is because they are created by the government. That is, the fact that the government stands behind a copyright is the only reason why anyone can make money from a copyright.

So, there has to be some give-and-take. The government isn't going to provide something like that for nothing. The giving part is that the government gives an author a copyright in a work. In exchange for that, at the expiration of the copyright term, the government takes the work and it becomes part of the public domain so that the people can use it for free. . . Give-and-take.

At least that's the reasoning behind the concept. After all, as Earnest has pointed out already, the Constitution specifies that copyrights shall be effective for "a limited time."

Also, I must respectfully disagree with you Ron that works subject to copyright protection stand the test of time better than works subject to patent protection. I would be willing to bet that a majority of the ideas that have been patented are still in wide-spread use to this day. For example, lightbulbs, the telephone, the airplane, the Dobro, vacuum tube, the amplifier, the electric guitar pickup, etc. etc. etc. -- these are all patented things that are still being used.

I'm not saying that I think the patent term and the copyright term should be equal, but the difference between a patent term of 20 years on the one hand and a copyright term of the author's life plus 70 years plus the opportunity to renew on the other hand are in completely different realms.