In the US (where pg lives and the MPAA/RIAA are based), the only reason that anyone is allowed any intellectual property protection is to advance society: > To

In the US (where pg lives and the MPAA/RIAA are based), the only reason that anyone is allowed any intellectual property protection is to advance society: > 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. The obvious way that this works is that authors are motivated to create because they have the exclusive right to sell their creation (and thus make a profit). That seems pretty OK to me. However, no amount of money is going to be able convince Mr. Lennon and Mr. Harrison to get the band back together. So, why are we still paying for that content? How is that advancing the arts? Would giving current creators the ability to use the entire back catalog of the Beatles without any cost or legal hassle advance the arts more? I would argue yes. I can't find an article for this, so sorry, maybe someone can, but I believe that the majority of books go out of print rather quickly. However, we're not allowed to copy them freely. When those books go out of print, we're taking society backwards. They're impossible to acquire legally. That's really bad. We need a balance. I think five to ten years would be fine. Opening up access to a new generation of small creators is better than providing further income to the JK Rowlings and Paul McCartneys of the world. They're already rich by that time anyways.