Just for context, the language in the US constitution said "limited time" and was codified as 14 years in 1790 [edit: hey, 14 years after the declaration of ind

Just for context, the language in the US constitution said "limited time" and was codified as 14 years in 1790 [edit: hey, 14 years after the declaration of independence, never noticed that before [subedit: just a coincidence I guess, UK statute from 1710 was also 14 years.]] Personally I think that's pretty good and anything longer IMO is unconstitutional. If you're making royalties off something published before 2010 I'd say that's actually helping you sit on your ass as opposed to encouraging creativity. On one hand I don't love putting a paywall on legal protections, but it's not without merit. I think it's neo-georgism that holds that you should pay for the right to monopolize - whether that's land, natural resources, or intellectual property. If you're keeping something walled off from the public, then you should be taxed so the public still seems some benefit from it. Encouraging only monopolizing the truly profitable. I'll also add that copyright was intended to protect publishers until they could recoup their investment in the printing of some work. Now that they cost of publishing is zero I don't really see the point.