[Huck]

Superextended copyright has severely damaged creativity in the music industry, for it has allowed artists to live on old creations rather than fighting along with the new. The generational-skipping of music styles is a result of copyright rules as much as anything else.

That's an interesting topic for discussion. As I have said, I don't know what the length should be. I personally don't see any problem with artists living off their accomplishments. I don't care if Don Henley writes another song or not. But I do think he should own Hotel California.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The issue of 30-40 year old songs being downloaded without permission is just a ruse being used by people who want music for free anyway. The vast majority of music being illegally downloaded are songs that are only a few years old at best. There is, as you have said, room for debate over how long copyrights should be extended. That debate really has no bearing on most of the music being downloaded. Even if the copyright was put at 10-15 years, most downloads would still be illegal, and rightly so. So people just can't handle the fact that they will have to pay for something.

[pyx]

Your tagline reads, (mp3 file sharing is THEFT.)

It is NOT theft.
Creating mp3 files from public domian centuries old Celtic music with a midi card has been easily done for about six or so years now. This is done entirely legally and is not THEFT. Open Software midi player software allows perfectly reasonable mp3 music file output. Sharing centuries old Celtic music mp3 files with peer 2 peer software like Grokster, is quite popular. (I suspect other ethnic groups are doing likewise to perpetuate their cultural heritage.) Calling for the outlawing this activity is outrageous as well as ridiculous.

Demanding that technology be banned because of HOW some end users use it, is just plain ... silly.