The Economist reports on the British Treasury's "Gowers Review of Intellectual Property" (link here). The report itself and other documents are available at (link here).

The Economist says

* its aim was to take a rational, evidence-based view of intellectual property and ways to safeguard it;

* it calls for a balance between the interests of creators and the public;

* it urges reform of the patent system when going to court to uphold a patent costs a company a minimum $1.5 million, often obliging innocent firms to pay to settle and prevents infringed parties from seeking redress. "A system to protect intellectual property is meaningless if only the rich can use (or abuse) it";

* it rejects extension of copyright from 50 to 95 years but supports tougher enforcement and making copying for private use easier;

* it is likely to have international repercussions.

"between the interests of creators and the public"

Still the old 'them & us' perspective pervading discussion, but how contemptuous to imply that the public are uncreative couch potatoes consuming their almighty creators' content.

This is not a conflict of interests between creators and the public.

The public are the creators.

This is a conflict of interests between large commercial publishers (whose business model relies upon copyright) and the public.

Let's not also give publishers the monopoly on creativity.

The issue is always "who owns the copyright"? If it is the creator, he benefits. If someone else acquired the copyright, they benefit. It is clear that when someone other than the creator owns it, it is no longer an incentive to create. It could still be an incentive to make the material available to others, but how long should a "second hand" copyright be in force?

For me the issue is how long copyright should last. Fifty years strikes me as excessive. 95 years is an abomination. But we are not going to get rid of all copyright. The issue is to organize opposition to the present system and restrict it. Anything else is quixotic. What is a reasonable life for a copyright (or a patent for that matter)?

Ownership of the copyright is only an issue until copyright is abolished.

As to the term of copyright, any term is quixotic. ;-)

You may think copyright is an immovable foundation supporting an engine of modern society, and those that tilt at it are delusional luddites.

I have just as mighty a riposte. The Internet is an inexorably approaching leviathan of instantaneous diffusion supporting an even more modern society. You drawing ever closer lines in the sand as it advances is not a mark of reasonable compromise, but of denying the inevitable.

What happens when the inexorable meets the immovable is what we're enjoying today. ;-)

I'm not tilting at the immovable, I'm prodding those who propose drawing more 'reasonable' lines in the sand, to think a little further ahead...