The benchmark I tend to use in such cases is simply "how does this benefit society?" It is also common in the present world to benchmark "can this make money for someone?" But it is when those two answers are in conflict that questions are raised.

In the case of copyright laws (and patents to some extent) publishing a new work (thereby copyrighting it) can be considered good or bad, based on the work and the person answering the question. However, I argue that it is "good" that the ideas in it are available to society at large. Making money in this way is perfectly acceptable.

Now what about 20 years later? Assuming the question is being asked because someone is interested in the work, then there is some clear benefit to society. And, yes, money can be made at it. But how much money? Well, if the work is still being published, then fine: it is both available and the copyright holder can earn money for it.

But what of a work that is 70 years old? Who, exactly, is making money here, though? Is the original author still alive? Is it reasonable to expect that a single idea should grant an author the right to lifetime profit? I call into question the benefit to society in this case.

Likewise, many copyrights are held by corporations. While there is a clear case of profit here, what is the benefit to society? Does the author of the work -- a person -- get an incentive to produce more? How exactly does this help society again?

Continuing to an extreme is patent-holding companies. Their purpose is to purchase the rights to patents then negotiate profits for their use. There is definitely a case for profit, but what of an inventor who creates a new idea then is sued by one of these companies for violating a patent -- not sued by the originator of the idea, but by an arbitrary party? Does this promote progress or does it terrify inventors -- the "American dream" is to invent something then make lots of money at it, but it's now an "American nightmare" in that by following the dream and completing its requirements, you end up going into lifetime debt instead?

I think it's time to revisit two things.

First, the durations of copyrights and patents is absurd. Copyrights should be good for no more than 10 years or so and patents somewhat less. That way, contemporaries to an idea or invention have an incentive to improve it -- a benefit to both individuals and society.

Second, only the originator of an idea may hold a copyright or patent. (Perhaps with an exception that unexpired copyrights or patents can be maintained by someone who relies on the care/profits of the originator.) Companies, corporations, and groups should not be allowed to own patents -- rather, they should be allowed to negotiate contracts with the originators for the copying rights.

Of course, I'm just stacking the deck so I'll be happy to invent things for society rather than just hide them in my back yard.

Well, I wrote an eloquent response and decided to change my name to my real name which deleted all the text I wrote. Thanks a lot.

My point was largely to agree that this new system -- despite drawing more reponses -- is hardly a success.

I'll go back in brief to what I had wrote and what was deleted. I'd have taken more time, but since this is just a shitty blog, who cares?

1. I miss the "Letters to the Editor" page which allows me to get a barometer on my own opinion relative to the spectrum of other readers.

2. With a consolidated, edited "Letters" section, I can return to articles that I had skipped or skimmed in response to hubbub about them.

3. To find out if there is any response to a past article, I have to go through the article page-by-page (I prefer the "Print" option to read articles so I don't have to stop-and-wait all the way through) just to get to the "Letters" link and then scour it page-by-page to find out if my opinion is represented. In popular articles, there can be hundreds of comments to peruse.

4. By hiding the comments on the last page, the new system tends to place the ego of the author over the opinion of the reader. Opinions on the quality of writing are no longer prominently displayed on a "Letters to the Editor" page.

Since the new Salon policy is about quantity over quality (and in spite of the first commenter's well-written piece) I just want to say that I enjoy Garrison Keillor's column. Every time I log on, I'm hopeful to see that beige line-drawing that means an oasis from the comparatively bland, brutal modern writing in the rest of the site.