I'm confused. Are you suggesting that since rayiner doesn't think there is a good reason to have the copyright last longer than 30 years then there is no good r

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that since rayiner doesn't think there is a good reason to have the copyright last longer than 30 years then there is no good reason for it to last longer than 14 years... therefore there is no need for copyright at all? I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Among those that feel copyright has its use, there is going to be differing opinions of just how long that copyright should be. But I think that group would all agree it should be greater than 0 (or else they would not be in that "copyright is useful" group at all). Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your argument. If so, I apologize.