[PostOnce]

The only reason we gave creators the right to control their work is to encourage them to create it and make it available.

If they aren't going to make it available, then no, we have no obligation to protect their work with our money and our legal system and enforcement officers that we're funding.

Otherwise, they get a lot from us, and we get nothing from them.

I suspect the huge majority would not care and that most of the things falling into this category would be orphaned works due to byzantine ownership issues.

[chrismcb]

No. We give creatures a right to control their work, so they will create works. They did create the work. Now they are working on something new. The fact that you want it, and they don't want to release it, doesn't mean you should get it. Basically we have them control over their work for a limited time. You can't just take that control away from them because you want a copy. Now I believe that the current "limited time"is to long . But that is a different argument

[PostOnce]

Why would we care if they create works if nobody can have them?

[TylerE]

Because the more of their rights you take away the less incentive they have to create?

[PostOnce]

Incentive to create things I can't have, use, or see, regardless of my willingness to pay?

Okay. I don't care if they have that incentive, and I don't think many other people do either.

Now, if they're going to create AND distribute things, that's another story. Then I'm on board.

[around_here]

That libertarian capitalist bullshit. People create things for free all the time. The purpose of creation is for the use of those creations. The purpose of government is to administer the common desires for the common good of the society they administer.