Rattle wrote:
] ] To reward those who can attract a paying audience, and
] ] the firms that support them, much shorter copyrights
] ] would be enough. The 14-year term of the original
] ] 18th-century British and American copyright laws,
] ] renewable once, might be a good place to start.
]
] The economist presents a radical copyright proposal.

"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron, a completely bogus concept that has been foisted on everyone. There is no "copy right" ...

The right answer, IMHO, is that "intellectual property" is transformed to "copy tax entitlement" ... you as the creator are granted no control (which is control that noone can really grant anyway) but are entitled to receive a royalty whenever someone copies your work.

RE: Economist.com | Copyrights