First of all, I think you’re being a bit harsh on Thomas Greene. He’s a much better tech writer than most and has in fact been pretty vocal in his criticism of the MPAA, RIAA and especially congress, so I don’t think it’s a false credibility thing.

He does raise some interesting points in this article which I think are right on. For example, he clearly criticizes the DMCA where it tramples on fair use rights. And parts of Eldred & Lessig?s argument are based on flawed logic and perfect world ideals. They are overlooking the realities of printing and publishing and assuming that it?s the same as the internet. Eldred is going to lose and for reasons Greene points out in another article: the justices are afraid of invalidating all the other extensions and because the Constitution says ?power to promote creative works,? not ?to optimize production.? While the Mickey Mouse Act is wrong, and bad legislation, it?s not unconstitutional–in this case, the Constitution gives congress the power to be wrong.

That said, I disagree with him on a few points in this article (and others). I found his analogy of the imaginary writer to be somewhat convincing–if that were the way things really worked, it?s a somewhat compelling example of copyright working. But I really don?t think that it?s like that for most authors. My biggest problem with copyright is that it seems like the actual creators of the works are forced to practically give away their copyright to a publisher. As far as I?m concerned, once the copyright exchanges hands, the term should be cut down drastically. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage arts & science, then once a writer gives up his copyright to a book publisher, it is no longer an incentive. The second biggest issue I have with copyright is that it kills the availability of lower volume books that are out of print. In many cases, a publisher that owns the copyright on an out of print book will not print the book because it won?t sell enough to be worth printing. Combine that with the acid-based paper most books were printed on that will only last a few decades (best case scenario) and you have a recipe for works being completely lost–forever. If a copyright owner is not willing to publish their work in some manner, their copyright should be void. Finally, I?ve heard that something like 90% of the money generated from a copyright is made in the first few years. If there is true hard evidence of this, then the benefit to society of copyright ending after those few years (plus few years to be safe) vastly outweighs the benefit of the creator of a few extra dollars. Anybody know whether this statistic is true or just anecdotal?