Why should copyright last longer than patents?
You started this in response to my original statement. I then gave you the reasons for it to last longer. Guarding against derivative work is not the biggest point, copyright is the biggest point. So, yeah, you might call it shifting goal posts, I would call it refining my point in response to what you are saying.
Bill, you're shifting the goalposts. You began by talking about simple ripping off.
That's why I gave the example of Bjorn Again, which is a "slew of derivative works" - not overshadowing the original, but popular in itself.
Now you're talking about exact copies only.
No, I am emphasizing exact copies because it is the easiest and most clear execution of copyright law. Suing for derivative IP infringement is a tough game and very expensive. That is what I said up thread. To me, it is easiest to say if you cut copyright down to 15 years, the easier to prove and far more devastating effect will be distribution of your work. The effect of derivative works may or may not be devastating (I gave an example of how it could be) and arguably could be done anyway under current laws. That is why I dropped it and moved to the more pertinent aspect of copyright laws.
Both would come up and be relevant in cutting down to a 15 year length so both are pertinent but I feel the distribution aspect to be much more relevant to the point you are trying to make;i.e. 15 year copyright would be a good thing.
If you would prefer to concede the point feel free but please stop squirming.
This is one of those definitional things. If you narrow your area of focus enough you can reasonably argue anything. But for a useful conversation about the basic principles underlying the things, we have to have a wider focus - and we have to keep the same width of focus throughout the conversation. Otherwise it just goes nowhere, you say X, I say what about Y, you say well I didn't mean X but x, and so on.
No, it is an opinion issue. It is something that, if you believe it will make the market stronger or stimulate the artists to do more work and you feel it is your job to do so then you will feel you are right. I believe my opinion is correct in that there are plenty of examples of artists who continue to profit after a short 15 year period, some for all their life. Since they are opinions they are, by definition, arguable. I can present the merits of my point of view and so can you. If I understand it, your POV can be summed with "I believe they can earn enough money in 15 years" and "There will be more creative endeavors". Mine could be summed as "The artist should be able to profit from his work for his entire life if he can" and "Artists should determine the distribution of their work".
Now, I don't believe copyright should extend beyond their life but I can understand the argument.
ETA: Also, derivative works usually have more issues with trade marks.