Some copyrights never expire. For example, my understanding is that the UK "crown copyright" (a copyright owned by the government) is perpetual. The US follows almost exactly the opposite rule, where works by or for the government are in the public domain.
Please do not confuse copyright and patent. Part of the core function of a patent is to require that the art be published for the benefit of all, in exchange for a short period of exclusivity. Disclosure is the essence of the patent process. Someone who chooses to obtain a patent makes an explicit choice to surrender other protections, such as trade secrecy. Sometimes a trade secret endures far longer than a patent could, as with Coca-Cola's formula or Colonel Sanders' herbs and spices. -- Mike On 2000-05-19 at 20:30 -0500, Paul Serice wrote: > Subjectively, it seems right that, if somebody spends 30 years writing > the best novel of the 21st century, she should be allowed to give the > proceeds to the charity of her choice for as long as she wanted. After > all, the book will be in the public library system soon so no one can > claim that they are being denied access to it. > > Subjectively, it seems wrong that someone could abuse the copyright or > patent laws to produce a monopoly like the one the justice department is > in the process of breaking up.
