Don't you hate it when you make an agreement, and the other party tries to change the terms just when you are about to get your part of the benefits?

Andrew Gowers, the former editor of the Financial Times, has been asked by the Government to conduct an independent review on the UK's "intellectual property" framework - that is, patents, copyrights and trademarks. I was kindly invited to attend the launch back in March, as a result of a previous article I wrote for Times Online which touched on copyright.

There are two hot-button issues which Mr Gowers will need to address. The first is software patents - of which more, perhaps, in a future column. The second, discussed here, is the duration of the monopoly protection granted by copyright law.

The modern idea of copyright in the UK began with the 1710 Statute of Anne, the full title of which was An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.

The purpose was the encouragement of learning, rather than the increase in printers' profits.

So basically, copyright is a bargain between a creative person and the public. The public, via their elected representatives, say: "We will make a law which gives you a monopoly, for a limited time, on copying some creative work you have made. This financially enables you to create more works without needing a wealthy patron. And it gives us those works to enjoy, and eventually all the rights to them we would have in absence of the law."

The "Time therein mentioned" by the Statute of Anne was 14 years. Today, for musical works, the copyright term is 50 years, which means that the work of some major artists from the 1960s we still listen to today, such as The Beatles, is not far from coming out of copyright.

The record companies therefore have a financial interest in extending the copyright term on existing works. So, they have responded to the Gowers Review by rolling out major artists like Cliff Richard and Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull to get all indignant about how their creative output is not being valued if they can't continue to make money from it.

But the entire multi-million pound record industry has been founded on a 50-year copyright term. The executives looked at the law, said "yes, this is a bargain we are prepared to strike with the public" and got on with the job of finding and promoting artists - very successfully.

Clearly, the copyright term is doing its job. Production of creative works has been encouraged. But now, when the patient public is coming close to getting its end of the bargain, suddenly they want to change the deal.

Let's do a thought experiment. What would happen if, tomorrow, the entire Beatles' back catalogue was suddenly out of copyright?

Firstly, it would quickly become much more widely available and listened to. High-quality copies would appear on all the legal peer-to-peer filesharing networks, and on music sale services like iTunes (where currently it's prevented from appearing by the rightsholders).

Several budget CD labels would issue box sets of the entire back catalogue at a low price. The Beatles' record company might well do higher-priced deluxe versions with bonus content such as videos or interviews to which they still had the rights. Someone would press some Beatles vinyl so scratch DJs could get their hands on copies more easily.

New music, such as dance or hip-hop, which sampled the originals, would be created and commercially released. Beatles music would become the soundtrack to many budget films, as artists jumped at the chance to use something recognisable without having to go through the hassle and expense of clearing. In short, there would be an explosion of creative output.

So who benefits here? Everyone - except perhaps the record companies, which is why they want to alter the agreement.

Copyright expiration is where we, the public, finally get to collect on our side of the copyright bargain. And about time, too. I hope Mr Gowers doesn't sell us out.

Gervase Markham works for the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting choice and innovation on the internet. His blog is Hacking For Christ

Times Recommends

• Minister in talks with Saudis to protect creditors
• Premier Inn hits back in £29-a-room row
• Bankers hit back at 'populist' bonus supertax