I don't live in the USA...

That said, there is much commonality in our copyright laws - by design AFAIK. Nevertheless, there are some differences and though I'd need to check it again to be sure (and I've been working at a frustrating corporate email migration that's not going well for way too long and am way too tired to bother checking) I seem to recall that our laws are tighter in that area. IIRC, scratch the "social acquaintances"... 'n I'm not real certain about the "small circle of a family" either.

Mac, with respect, I feel that copyright should not last 2 lifetimes as it does now. Nor should it be able to be assigned to a corporation. Want to look after your kids? That's fine by me, assign them each a share in your will. But it should not last an additional lifetime. How long it should last is an interesting question; till they're 18, or maybe 21 or perhaps 25? Maybe, but an extra 70 years is too long. Again, it's about being able to build on prior art without fear of persecution. I refer again to the "Men at work" case - 11 notes - which they claim was unintentional (as they would I suppose...) and it may well cost them millions to be paid in favour of people who did NOTHING to earn it. Eleven lousy notes...

If I patent, say, an artificial heart that can save potentially hundreds or even thousands of lives, I can only get 25 years protection. Where is the equity? Which approach is the correct one? I don't know.

I will say that I am a great believer in preserving wealth within a family. I want to leave my kids better off than I am, not worse. And their kids should be better off again, so I won't be spending their inheritance, but I also expect them to produce things themselves. I did not raise parasites, I raised 2 men and a woman able to stand on their own feet.

--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya laugh --=--
You're only paranoid if you're wrong!