[johnnyanmac]

Numbers can be tweaked but it adds up quickly.

Protect for 40 years for a million? Sure. Probably worth it for mega IPs

50 years for $100m? Still doable but it really starts to hurt.

60 for $10B? Maybe Pokemon and Mikey mouse can justify it, but very very few.

By 70 years it's simply not worth it.

>This scheme seems to protect the largest companies with the largest bank accounts the most. Why would we want a system like that?

Because the small time authors really won't care in 20 years anyway. Even if the cost to renew is a pittance. Are there authors trying to sell the copyright to a failed IP in 30 years?

[robocat]

My friend was getting royalty cheques 30 years after creating a song (slightly different from books) and the money mattered to him. The amounts were small and probably not worth any paperwork nor the risk of prepayment (paying for extension) which might not get back.

Hard to find the right balance, but what we have now is asinine.

[glimshe]

I'm sorry, but this isn't necessarily a good thing. Your friend takes this money and goes have a haircut, the person cutting their hair won't be making money for the haircut 30 years later. Okay, we can give some extra benefits for intellectual property, but 30 years is way too much.

[avereveard]

Heck even something absurdly low like 1$ per year would already be enough to salvage all those works from bankrupted companies that will lapse on payment. There are so many IP in limbo because their ownership is fragmented, unclear, or forgotten and having a payer renewal fees would clear up a lot of that real fast.

That said I like the exponential scheme.