So, just to offer a particular example to test my understanding, you think that I'm saying that if Google runs their service on top of Linux, they should be able to hold their own source code in reserve, but any changes they make to the kernel should be returned to the kernel, but if they fail to do that, then the the Linux project should not have standing to hold Google liable in civil court?

No. I'm saying the legal regime that supports 77 years of copyright is profoundly flawed and a little civil disobedience is a reasonable way to keep the conversation moving forward. There is no law that those with enough resources cannot obey. It's those with limited resources who agitate for change.

"So, just to offer a particular example to test my understanding, you think that I'm saying that if Google runs their service on top of Linux, they should be able to hold their own source code in reserve, but any changes they make to the kernel should be returned to the kernel, but if they fail to do that, then the the Linux project should not have standing to hold Google liable in civil court?" If they can go after Google, I should be able to after someone in court for distributing my proprietary software without my consent. Both are license violations, but in different ways. You seem to be pushing for legalized piracy (or the inability for anyone to protect their intellectual property). Except in the case of open source software. This is the hypocrisy I've seen time and time again from people that are against copyright laws.

> hypocrisy ... from people that are against copyright laws

I'm arguing that 77 years of copyright is too long. Maybe 6 months or a year. That's the timeframe some scientific journals are moving toward for making their archives available. I would also argue the fair use exception should be made far broader, especially for education. Are you arguing that 77 years of copyright is acceptable? Do fully endorse the current system without reservation?

I hope that when this happens, I have lots of money stocked away.

I will wait until a smaller, successful company's copyright expires after a year and I will replicate it exactly. Because I have more resources, I will be able to easily compete and most likely put that company out of business.

After a big block-buster movie comes out, which costs a million+, I could make t-shirts and all sorts of things to make money..and I didn't have to put any of the work into creating it.

I suspect that most advocates of radical copyright reform would draw a distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringement. I would also treat different media differently, so e.g. software may have either stricter or more relaxed guidelines than music and movies.

I would say the couldn't,after 77 years, or 15-20 years.