[hn_acker]

While I agree in theory, I'm afraid that disputes over what is sufficient in what industry would result in 10 years for one kind of work, 40 for another, and 5 for yet another. I would accept a one-size-fits-all solution in the form of a lowest-common-denominator which simultaneously is much closer to the original US copyright term. Surely 15 years of monopoly privileges after publishing - or 20 years after writing/making, whichever is sooner - is sufficient. (No extensions, although I might accept something like Bill Willingham's proposal of giving licensees 10 years total and max [1].) If that's not enough incentive then the prospective author isn't confident that the work would sell well in the best conditions, and a government should not further distort a market to make an at-best-poorly-selling product sell well.

[1] https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fable...

[redwall_hp]

It should also be strictly limited to original works, not vaguely applied to "derivatives." A cover of a song should be considered an original work, and not infringing upon the original. As should a song that uses sections of melody or samples.

I'd also say that durations should be shorter than the original terms, due to the much higher volume of works produced today and greater accessibility of those tools. 5-10 from publication at the most.

After all, a massive supply of something with a relatively static demand simply means it has a lower value than it once did.