Perhaps you meant to respond to another comment, but I don't see any connection between your objection to my analogy and the original point. I did refer to hous

Perhaps you meant to respond to another comment, but I don't see any connection between your objection to my analogy and the original point. I did refer to housing but only as an example of a good where the market price for similar goods is not a perfect substitute for the original item from the owner's point of view, creating an incentive for the owner to set a higher buyout price. Losing the copyright doesn't mean losing access to the work, true—nothing like needing to find alternate shelter on short notice—but it does mean losing control and that would most likely lead many copyright holders to set a higher buyout price than the going market rate. This aspect is similar to the emotional investment in a home which makes it worth more to an owner (with no plans to sell) than it would be worth to a stranger evaluating it on purely financial grounds. Judging from your phrases "monopoly on rent-seeking" and "ability to stop that productivity", I suspect we're approaching this from similar mindsets. As I said before, if it were up to me I would not grant copyright in the first place. Requiring payment for copyright privileges and creating an option for the public to buy out the copyright holder are steps in the right direction. However, I wouldn't want to see the same eminent domain model applied to true property, such as real estate, under the mistaken assumption that it results in an accurate valuation for tax purposes.