...I really enjoyed this debate, although I was a little surprised to see quite a lot of agreement between the panellists. Not sure how much of this was just out of a desire on the part of John McVay and Adam Singer not to get into a fierce debate in public, and how much was genuine agreement with the points that Larry Lessig was making.....

[open rights group]
Should the term of copyright protection be extended or shortened in the UK? - RSA, IPPR, PCMLP Lecture

Well, it shouldn't.

Ask yourself - who benefits? Why?

When discussing of the IP laws and regulations we shouldn't forget their main thesis:
Giving a restricted temporary monopoly to an authour or inventor, in return of full disclosure of their work.

The IP legislation happened in order to help the society aquire new knowledge, entertainment... Generally to encourage development. It has nothing to do with profit, apart from the fact some compensation is required to sustain the author or inventor. The profits were a secondary concern, opening knowledge the primary.

The current trend reverses that. The current laws in different countries are being "harmonised" upwards. We might end with copyright infinity - 1 years. Who will benefit? Society? Authors? - I would say no. But we will leave a very powerful lever - excersise control over who can publish a certain work in the hands of a minority (more often than not the publishers of a work). Do we want that?

Does the society want restrictions on the distribution of a piece of art? What is a decent compromise?

It is only fair that the authors of a song receive money - they laboured on that, it is their baby. But for how long? Is borrowing some of their ideas stealing their work or a valid artistic conversation?

All these questions don't have a easy answer. My concern is that when we discuss these issues we often forget that the current status quo largely neglects the interests of the society overall, dicriminates them in favour of the authors.