[readbeard]

If we work together, I think it would be realistic for us to attain a rollback of most recent one or two copyright term extensions by following a two-pronged strategy:

(1) Show politicians on the left how copyright term extensions have largely amounted to a transfer of wealth from the public to large corporations, and

(2) Show politicians on the right how rolling back to an earlier version of copyright would reduce the interference of the government in the lives of its citizens and return to a vision for IP that better adheres to that presented by the Constitution and defended by its framers, while leading to a more vibrant and competitive market for new works.

Meanwhile, both groups should be assured that a release of many classic works into the public domain would be popular among the vast majority of their constituents.

Who's in?

[zarzavat]

Politicians in the US are corrupt. You need a rich person who cares about your cause to bribe them more than the rich businesses with copyrights are currently bribing them. Then the law will be changed.

[readbeard]

I disagree. While a rich person's backing would certainly be helpful, I think convincing a couple of politicians with platforms and some clout on each side that spearheading a joint IP reform effort would benefit their political careers would be adequate to get the ball rolling.

[zestyping]

Both of your arguments have merit, and would be convincing if politicians on both sides were driven by logic. Sadly, I'm doubtful that many politicians on the left still have the integrity or power to act against copyright empires.

It's even more obvious that politicians on the right no longer care about limited government. They are currently trying to ban books.