This is kinda long so bear with me. I'm digesting some of the responses in this thread so far.
Here's what I propose: I think a distinction needs to be made between art copyright (books, music, film, comics, etc.) and software copyright (applications, games, utilities, operating systems, etc.).
Without getting into the debate of "is software art?" I think it's reasonable to state that art in this sense is a piece of work that is not necessarily tied to the digital format (e.g. print can exist on paper, stone tablet, my forehead, etc.; music can exist as a live performance, on wax cylinder, vinyl, tape, etc.; film can exist on celluloid, tape, a flip-book, etc.). In other words, art is created and meant to be enjoyed no matter what medium it exists on and has a longer financial shelf life for the author. It can be enjoyed for many generations and is easily transferable to new mediums as needed.
Software, on the other hand, must grow with the hardware industry. It is always digital and it always has a small window of shelf-life for the author. By this I mean it must constantly be upgraded to keep up with industry hardware changes. With changing hardware, operating systems, and API's, old versions are quickly made obsolete. Art is dependent on none of these things. Version 1 of any piece of software written in 1988 is certainly not going to share much code with it's namesake written in the present. Company A made all the profit they possibly could with Version 1 of their software in 1988 and has since moved on. That particular piece of software is just a relic and a footnote in the company's history. They have no further stake in it. It is obsolete and will not run in anything save for a virtual environment or some guy's basement who happens to have the particular piece of 1988 hardware that was meant to run it.
Quick note: I'm going to use the term "sharing" instead of "copying". Copying something is meaningless. I can have 50 copies of Photoshop 6 on a hard disk. If I never use it and bury it in my backyard it's essentially worthless. Each copy could not possibly equate to lost revenue on the author's part. Sharing, on the other hand, implies that it is now in another person's hands and they can now access and use the software. Anyway...
My point is, software copyright should have a much shorter lifespan than copyright for the arts. In fact, it shouldn't even be in the same league, IMO. Obsolete hardware and the number of users operating it shrinks smaller and smaller every year. With art, the audience can only grow. Allowing the free sharing of obsolete software for the obsolete hardware it was created for should not be the huge ordeal it's made out to be.
This is not to say that the companies who authored this obsolete software should have to provide any warranty or technical support. The users are completely on their own. This should go without saying. This also doesn't presume that recent versions of software (e.g. Photoshop CS3) should be released freely. Discontinued does not necessarily mean obsolete. If there exists a significant user base for a piece of software then it should certainly be protected.
So, how many years should a software copyright last? Who says it has to be a set number of years? There is no crystal ball that determines when hardware becomes obsolete and in the hands of the few collectors and hobbyists. Software copyright should last as long as it is marketable. Simple as that, right?
Here's what I propose: I think a distinction needs to be made between art copyright (books, music, film, comics, etc.) and software copyright (applications, games, utilities, operating systems, etc.).
Without getting into the debate of "is software art?" I think it's reasonable to state that art in this sense is a piece of work that is not necessarily tied to the digital format (e.g. print can exist on paper, stone tablet, my forehead, etc.; music can exist as a live performance, on wax cylinder, vinyl, tape, etc.; film can exist on celluloid, tape, a flip-book, etc.). In other words, art is created and meant to be enjoyed no matter what medium it exists on and has a longer financial shelf life for the author. It can be enjoyed for many generations and is easily transferable to new mediums as needed.
Software, on the other hand, must grow with the hardware industry. It is always digital and it always has a small window of shelf-life for the author. By this I mean it must constantly be upgraded to keep up with industry hardware changes. With changing hardware, operating systems, and API's, old versions are quickly made obsolete. Art is dependent on none of these things. Version 1 of any piece of software written in 1988 is certainly not going to share much code with it's namesake written in the present. Company A made all the profit they possibly could with Version 1 of their software in 1988 and has since moved on. That particular piece of software is just a relic and a footnote in the company's history. They have no further stake in it. It is obsolete and will not run in anything save for a virtual environment or some guy's basement who happens to have the particular piece of 1988 hardware that was meant to run it.
Quick note: I'm going to use the term "sharing" instead of "copying". Copying something is meaningless. I can have 50 copies of Photoshop 6 on a hard disk. If I never use it and bury it in my backyard it's essentially worthless. Each copy could not possibly equate to lost revenue on the author's part. Sharing, on the other hand, implies that it is now in another person's hands and they can now access and use the software. Anyway...
My point is, software copyright should have a much shorter lifespan than copyright for the arts. In fact, it shouldn't even be in the same league, IMO. Obsolete hardware and the number of users operating it shrinks smaller and smaller every year. With art, the audience can only grow. Allowing the free sharing of obsolete software for the obsolete hardware it was created for should not be the huge ordeal it's made out to be.
This is not to say that the companies who authored this obsolete software should have to provide any warranty or technical support. The users are completely on their own. This should go without saying. This also doesn't presume that recent versions of software (e.g. Photoshop CS3) should be released freely. Discontinued does not necessarily mean obsolete. If there exists a significant user base for a piece of software then it should certainly be protected.
So, how many years should a software copyright last? Who says it has to be a set number of years? There is no crystal ball that determines when hardware becomes obsolete and in the hands of the few collectors and hobbyists. Software copyright should last as long as it is marketable. Simple as that, right?