People focus on the term of copyright because they still have the idea it’s a right of the individual(author) instead of a privilege designed for exploitation by the printers/publishers it’s expected to be assigned/transferred to. Hence they feel that although it cannot be questioned, perhaps it could be shorter…

It is the right to copy that is already held by natural beings, and this right that is derogated by copyright to privilege legal entities (immortal corporations who can benefit from multi-century terms).

If any change should be made in respect of who/what copyright applies to, it should simply apply only to corporations, i.e. so that mortal individuals cannot, by law, infringe copyright. Nevertheless, that doesn’t stop individuals holding, selling, or exploiting/enforcing (if wealthy) the privilege attaching to their original works.

However, as you recognise, even if copyright only enabled unauthorised corporations to be excluded from reproducing covered works, the era in which copyright is actually viable, enforceable and effective, has long since passed. The reality is that we are now enlightened as to the nature of information, its communication, and that human beings cannot effectively function without the liberty to communicate – hence why such liberty is a natural right – to communicate is to copy.

You are quite right to observe that beyond argument nothing is going to be as persuasive as a business model that operates without copyright. Unfortunately, there’s a catch 22: it’s difficult implementing such business models without funding, but funding for such development is unlikely until such models have been implemented to demonstrate they’re worth funding. Very few people recognise that one can sell/commission art without selling copies.

I’m having a go, but it’s very slow solo, i.e. http://contingencymarket.com and http://1p2u.com

As for removing copyright altogether, its worth discussion but I doubt you’ll see that happen for phase one…

The idea of limited term copyright does have merit, but the term should be clearly limited (not forever – 1 day as it is at the moment), and also I would argue that copyright should only be held by natural rather than legal entities – so a person/people can hold copyright but a company can not.

The problem we’re entering at the moment is that in an ever increasing number of situations the current concept of copyright and IP in general is meaningless. If we encouraged people to accept this reality and develop business models that didn’t require copyright / IP in general in order to function then I think you’d have a much easier time to convince people to abandon the concept altogether.

Don’t you find that odd?