I agree, and I haven’t argued against that anywhere in this thread. You seem to have missed my point entirely. The part you’re not addressing is that copying others’ work is also rent-seeking, it’s trying to take value for yourself that someone else created.
> For five to ten years
So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time. Good, we agree there. Now, how did you come up with five to ten years? What justifies that term? Does it work for all creators? How do you know?
That's not what I meant. What I wanted to say is that it absolutely is an "argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not".
Copyrights, truly time limited, are a lot of things but not rent seeking. Rent seeking is when you just collect rent from existing successful properties without having to create new works. If the copyright terms are short and limited, creators have no choice but to create new stuff or lose their revenue.
> So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time.
I'm not okay with any rent seeking at all. I simply don't think it is rent seeking if the duration is short enough.
Copyrights, even short ones are rent-seeking. That is the explicit and more or less stated point of the law. They don’t use that word, so your terminology and framing is slightly hyperbolic and negative spin. It’s a bit more common to say copyrights grant a “monopoly” over a work for a period of time, or simply that the work is protected for some time. I really don’t have a problem with calling it rent-seeking, and I think it’s inaccurate to claim that a shorter term makes it not rent-seeking. It’s still rent-seeking, for a shorter time, nothing more and nothing less.
Why do you claim copyrights aren’t “truly” time limited? That’s not factually correct. We’re commenting on the batch of material that enters public domain. Yes the time limit is long, yes it has been extended, but it is not “infinite”. I said it before, but exaggerating isn’t helping you. Your argument could be more compelling if you stuck to facts.
> I simply don’t think it is rent seeking if the duration is short enough.
It’s less time rent-seeking by the creators, and more time rent-seeking by the copiers. The problem that led to copyright laws existing is unscrupulous copiers who seek rent for something they didn’t create. It happened before, and would happen again if copyrights were abolished. It would be even worse today with companies like Google and Amazon, because they have de facto monopolies on the digital distribution channels, and they can steal and promote content made by individuals without giving them any slice of the pie… even more than they already are.
> If the copyright terms are short and limited, creators have no choice but to create new stuff or lose their revenue.
And if they’re longer, then copiers have no choice but to create new stuff or lose their revenue. There’s a symmetry here you keep trying to avoid. Every argument you have so far in favor of shortening copyright has an analogue argument that would favor increasing the term length. The law currently acknowledges this and is trying to balance these two forces. It might well be off balance today in favor of creators, but if you want to get copyrights shortened, it will require demonstrating a better balance point. What won’t work is trying to claim there isn’t one.
I agree, and I haven’t argued against that anywhere in this thread. You seem to have missed my point entirely. The part you’re not addressing is that copying others’ work is also rent-seeking, it’s trying to take value for yourself that someone else created.
> For five to ten years
So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time. Good, we agree there. Now, how did you come up with five to ten years? What justifies that term? Does it work for all creators? How do you know?