How is earning $1 billion in five years, less incentive to continue working than $50.000 over 50 years?Kwil said:So the people who make the things society values most get the least incentive for doing so, while the people who make things that society doesn't give a crap about get society's ongoing protection so that they can continue to do that? Given that the purpose of the copyright system is actually to *encourage* the creation of things that society values, your system seems exactly backwards.
My point was exactly that since the most profitable works already earned their incentive in the first years, there is no reason for letting them keep their rights just so they can get proportionally even more outlandishly high profits.
Like progressive taxing. Rich people are already richer anyways, so taking away a larger percentage of their money still leaves them better off.
If you are talking about literally these numbers, then sure, they could afford it, but then the problem is exactly that, it gives practically zero reason for anyone but the most obscure writers,to ever lose IP over the centuries, thus make an IP system even more oppressive than the current one.Kwil said:A personal artist has ten years to make the princely sum of $100 to protect it for another 10 years. If they can't manage to do that, then not only does their work suck (so shouldn't be further encouraged) but they're not invested enough in it to save less than a buck a month to protect their own work. They'll have had 20 years to make $500, total, and 30 years to make $1400 total to give them protection for 40 years. That's still under $50/yr.. and you're saying they can't afford that?
It's not lawyers or judges who decide a law's extent, but legislators. Politicians. And sure, those can be bought too, especially in the US lobbying system, but they can also be voted out of the legisleture by the people. As we have seen with SOPA, that also gives them a certain incentive. Given that you already proposed a hypothetical legal reform that would need legislative support anyways, I assumed that we might as well propose a more useful one.Kwil said:And lets be honest, for those multi-billion IPs, those copyrights are never going to expire. THe companies are going to buy lawyers, judges, and whatever they have to in order to continually extend the term -- and by doing so, they'll extend the terms of *everything else*.