> Really short when compared to more mature laws, e.g. laws against theft and murder.
Does being thousands of years old really make a law mature, wise, or appropriate today? Or somehow "innate", which was part of The Mighty Yar's original point about copyright? Then oh, my, let's ignore the last 150 years of US law and centuries of various country's laws and return to Old Testament slavery law from Exodus, at the core of all the Hebrew originated faiths:
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
The Kung Gao, one of the ldest Chinese legal documents, apparently discusses the treatment of slaves, as does the Code of the Nessilim from the Hittie Empire of Turkey. And yet, despite their maturity, modern law forbids slavery in almost in all nations and in the UN's Slavery Convention. Does that mean that the law is "immature" or somehow invalid?
The "Roman copyright would have extended the Dark Ages" claims is so confused, on so many different levels, I'm unsure where to begin. I will mention that with printing, which is the key technology that copyright exists for, that the Roman Empire might have lasted another 500 years due to the technological, economic, and military advantages it provides. So saying "it would have extended the Dark Ages" is confusing.