[eno_]

Patents have a much sorter lifespan than copyright, for more reasons one can go into without writing a book. The problem for drug companies is that the approval process takes up much of the life of the patent. A reasonable extension that would bring drug patents into line with other things that take a shorter time to turn into products would be OK. But the current trend of indefinite copyrights is VERY WRONG.

[apochromat]

The thought has crossed my mind that sites like Napster were just a corporate setup to form a basis for more restrictive laws. I never saw the attraction for multiplying and trading pirated works for personal gain. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that once one's mind is infected with some cultural virus, one likes to keep it around for further study. So perhaps these people simply heard the songs on the radio, or saw it on an in-flight movie ... I don't know.

[boris]

"If the Democratic assault on drug patents succeeds, it will open the doors for similar assaults on all forms of intellectual property, including artistic creations. Copyrights are what allow writers, artists and drug companies to make a living."

Although I agree that forcing drug companies to sell on the government's terms is a very bad idea, the above is nonsense.

The crux of the leftists' argument (assuming that they have one at all) is that drugs are necessary for life and health and hence are 'special'. Nobody can claim that songs, paintings, or movies are 'vital necessities'.

Ironically, it is the fact that art is not considered a matter of life and death that ensures these works will continue to be protected...

--Boris