[billh]

I think an even more simple and self limiting solution would be to require a payment for copyright that doubles every period.

For example, the first 5 years would be $100, the next 5 would be $200 ... by year 100 you're paying $52.5 million to extend your copyright by another 5 years.

You could even set up a scheme where you can pre-pay your copyright dues to a set period. Want 30 years w/o having to renew, put down $5,600 up front and it's good. Want to test the waters on something and lock in for 5? Send in $100 and let it go abandoned 5 years later if things don't pan out.

[inter_netuser]

This can be easily gamed with some creative accounting.

IP is often owned by offshore entities not subject to any taxation whatsoever, or minimal at best (1-3% range). It then gets rented to onshore entities that actually use it, and they pay enormous IP licensing fees for that.

You can't fix complexity by building up even more complexity, something must be simplified instead.

[jedberg]

Sure, they payment terms are certainly negotiable.

The main points are 1) Payment every year that gets cost prohibitive and 2) Annual registration to solve the abandoned works problem.

[lodovic]

But that's a problem if you have to wait for years for your work to become popular.

[jedberg]

The point of copyright is to offer a limited monopoly to encourage making risky things. If you can't or don't want to monetize it, then you don't need the monopoly, and it's unlikely that such a scheme would stifle innovation.

I can't imagine someone saying, "I want to work on this idea, but I won't because I know it won't be profitable for many years".

[vidarh]

So start the clock after a (small) number of initial years. And/or make it free until publication (so e.g. making the rounds with publishers doesn't require you to start paying). Or tweak the exponents.