anything less than 10 years would seriously risk political suicide by casting us as 'extremists'
"Political suicide"? We have 139 members, and have trouble getting people along to meetings. Who knows how long it will be before we can actually register. The only way this party is likely to ever to have any influence on government policy is to represent a credible alternative position.
Yes, firstly, before we can do much else, we need more members. A stronger line, like a shorter term or abolishment of copyright, could well help us in this first step of getting more members, but (my personal opinion) it would be a first step on a road to nowhere.
People's initial snap judgement of a suggestion is based on how easily it fits into their current world view (influenced by what they're used to). If we fail this initial snap-judgement test, then we have lost any chance of getting a message across. People will just basically switch off, and no matter how good your argument is, it won't really register. They will assume that there's some hidden or subtle flaw that they can't figure out right now, and won't bother spending the time to try to figure it out.
For people who think 75 years is too short, 10 years is crazy radicalism. We will never win them over, and by accepting that their position has merit, we demonstrate that ours has none.
We don't have to win over the majority, but we must
ensure that, at worst, they don't care too much. If we take a line that scares a significant proportion of the general public, or amuses them, then we're going to be sharing a corner of the political stage occupied by the Democrats for Social Credit, and no other political party will dare associate with us.
I think there's a big psychological difference between 10 and anything less--it's in the double digits order of magnitude--so I think it could make a significant difference in how many people switch off from the start.
The ownership of knowledge and expression is a moral harm which cannot stand. The time for clear and forthright thinking on this issue is upon us. We need to inspire change, not hope to wheedle it out of an utterly disinterested political establishment. Anything less is simple pointless.
I think it's probably fair to say that people are often cautious of radical upheaval (anything too far outside what they are used to). I think you generally only get radical upheaval when the mood of the general public has already shifted towards it, which is fairly rare, and that this is not such a situation, so we have to refrain from being too ambitious. If we can achieve a less ambitious goal, and people find that it works, then we've shifted the whole playing field. The new situation becomes the norm, and we've made progress.