You don't think there's any similarity between 19th century railroad lobbying for special favors and today's endless lobbying campaign for perpetual copyrights?

No, the railroad industry was marked by large conglomerates, and lobbying primarily benefitted them. The technology industries are the most decentralized and non-concentrated sector, and strong IP policies benefit new entrants and mid-sector entities. Small firms hold a disproportionate amount of patents, and IP gives small-independent creators bargaining chips with which to exchange with larger entities.

Noel, I'm glad you didn't try to suggest that the entertainment industries are decentralized, or that artists in those industries (other than those few with the prominence of Keith Richards) have any significant bargaining power.

Extolling the virtues of "IP" in the abstract sheds no light on any important policy questions, since despite your frequent insinuations there is no one of consequence (not even your favorite punching bag Richard Stallman) calling for the repeal of patent and copyright law in its entirety.

However, just because patent and copyright laws are beneficial, it doesn't follow that boundless expansion of those laws (such as the addition of paracopyright laws like DMCA Section 1201 and the proposed Broadcast Treaty) is also beneficial.

Praising intellectual property along with motherhood and apple pie is safe turf, but doesn't really contribute much.

John, I've stated elsewhere that I did not support the CTEA, and that software patents should be held under the same standards as other patents. I'm not sure where you gather I support the boundless expansion of IP.

Praising IP does contribute to discourse, because IP contributes to the economy. Free culture on the other hand...

Noel, my question was about perpetual copyrights. You responded by talking about patents.

Moreover, it's hard to see how extending the term of copyrights from 75 years to 95 years helps up-and-coming authors. By definition, those authors don't have any copyrights that are 75 years old.

I'm partially with you on the CTEA Tim. I saw no reason to extend copyright terms, and absolutely so no reason to extend them retroactively.

But your first comment was about the larger issue of lobbying and policy- and in that aspect, copyright supports small-independent creators. While the CTEA may not have been necessary, or even adviseable, its beneficiaries are those small-independent entities that bring society creative and innovative productions.

Tell me exactly Tim, without strong copyright policy (or patents), how would a new market entrant negotiate or compete with established firms.

Tell me, what gives those established firms their power? Oh yeah, copyright and patent monopoly portfolios. In a free market, they wouldn't need to bend over for the established companies in the first place.