[DilipJ]

i agree that heirs don't innovate. But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's death, at which point they enter the public domain.

My question to you is, for material that is not in the public domain, do you believe that the innovator has a right to determine at what price they should sell their product at? And if not, is that not dissuading innovation?

And the 64 million dollar question, if they have a right to sell their product without digital infringement, how can you prevent this, without some bill law SOPA or PIPA?

[noonespecial]

But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's death

I'd argue that this(1) is(2) not(3) true(4).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

[malandrew]

What people fail to realize about copyright in the US is that it was designed to enrich our country, and all US citizens.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to protect intellectual property with one and only one goal in mind. Enriching the United States and its citizens.

U.S. Constitution - Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. "The Congress shall have 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;"

They have the power to "promote progress" and not the power to "enable rent-seeking", which is basically what intellectual property laws have been perverted into by private individuals seeking to increase their short term gains.

US Intellectual Property Law is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons.

Which would you rather have? Under which situation would you and 99% of all U.S. Citizens be better off: (1) the right to the exclusive income on something you have made for your entire life and part of the life of your heirs and assigns or (2) the right to free, unfettered access to every intellectual good created prior to 2004 that isn't a trade secret?

Under which of those two scenarios would more "progress in Science and the useful Arts" occur?

I don't know about you, but when I have kids, I would prefer that they inherit a large commons than rights to income from the works I have created.

P.S. To directly answer your question. What I believe about that doesn't matter. What does matter is that the laws in this country be enacted with the sole purpose of maximizing Science and the useful Arts that we all have free and open access to. If it is necessary to permit someone to temporarily restrict access to an intellectual good to provide financial incentive to a creator to create a work in the first place then that achieves the goals of the U.S. Constitution. How much restriction and for how long, should be the absolute minimum necessary to make sure the innovation happens at all.

99.9+% of all rational actors would not going to be dissuaded from creating by a copyright policy that only lasts the original 7 years. Every time copyright has been extended, it has been extended by people who have already profited handsomely off their intellectual good to the prior X years (where X is the copyright term at the time) and would like to extend that term so they can continue to earn rent. The terms would probably never have been extended otherwise, since the lawyers and lobbyists necessary to argue for the copyright extension in Congress don't come cheap.

There is nothing preventing people from selling their goods with DRM. The problem with DRM is that it makes a good less convenient for a buyer and drives the buyer to other goods or illegitimate copies. The most expensive cost for a creator is the copy left unsold.