a shorter period of protection, is either disingenuous or dishonest This reasoning is no more a necessary feature of the civil law conception of intellectual property than it is of its common law conception. The difficulty is that neither system has a coherent and intellectually rigorous justification for copyright in its current configuration. Here is one (unoriginal) idea that might direct policy marginally better than the waffle of the Directives Individuals deserve the opportunity of developing personally and gaining economically from the product of their intellectual labour in proportion(a good European word )to their effort, and what is good for the individual is equally (or perhaps proportionately) good for society, both European That precept may very well create a different common denominator of European copyright law, perhaps one that more plausibly will advance the interests of consumers and society as a whole and even authors and cultural industries note 1. Working paper: subject to evision 2. Reuters Professor of Intellectual Property Information Technology Law, University of Oxford Director, Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, St Peter's College, Oxford; Professorial Fellow, St Peter's College. Thanks to Thomas Sebastian (St Peter,s College) and Patrick Masiyakurima(Oxford IP Research Centre) for providing preliminary research and background material 3. There is, of course, room for common and civil law interaction within UK copyright law, as between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Save, however, on some issues of title and remedy the same substantive copyright legislation, penned in the common law drafting mode, has applied on both sides of the border since the 1 8th centur 4. This language in Recital (2) of the Term Directive (1993)appears in various iterations throughout all the intellectual property harmonisation and approximation Directives 5. Laddie J, Prescott QC and Vitoria QC, The Modern Law of Copyright, 2nd ed(1995),vi 6. Any general anti-European political point inherent in either of these propositions is ignored ere 7.Cmd.2036(1897),vi 8. Skone James, Mummery(then J, now L), Rayner James QC Garnett QC, Copinger Skone James on Copyright, 13th ed(1991),via shorter period of protection, is either disingenuous or dishonest. This reasoning is no more a necessary feature of the civil law conception of intellectual property than it is of its common law conception. The difficulty is that neither system has a coherent and intellectually rigorous justification for copyright in its current configuration. Here is one (unoriginal) idea that might direct policy marginally better than the waffle of the Directives: Individuals deserve the opportunity of developing personally and gaining economically from the product of their intellectual labour in proportion (a good European word) to their effort; and what is good for the individual is equally (or perhaps proportionately) good for society, both European and beyond. That precept may very well create a different common denominator of European copyright law, perhaps one that more plausibly will advance the interests of consumers and society as a whole - and even authors and cultural industries. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes 1. Working paper: subject to revision. 2. Reuters Professor of Intellectual Property & Information Technology Law, University of Oxford; Director, Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, St Peter's College, Oxford; Professorial Fellow, St Peter's College. Thanks to Thomas Sebastian (St Peter's College) and Patrick Masiyakurima (Oxford IP Research Centre) for providing preliminary research and background material. 3. There is, of course, room for common and civil law interaction within UK copyright law, as between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Save, however, on some issues of title and remedy, the same substantive copyright legislation, penned in the common law drafting mode, has applied on both sides of the border since the 18th century. 4. This language in Recital (2) of the Term Directive (1993) appears in various iterations throughout all the intellectual property harmonisation and approximation Directives. 5. Laddie J, Prescott QC and Vitoria QC, The Modern Law of Copyright, 2nd ed (1995), vi. 6. Any general anti-European political point inherent in either of these propositions is ignored here. 7. Cmd. 2036 (1897), vii. 8. Skone James, Mummery (then J, now LJ), Rayner James QC & Garnett QC, Copinger & Skone James on Copyright, 13th ed (1991), vi