>longer copyright is going to disproportionately be on big works owned by big holders ... which were expensive to create, generally. Remember, copyright is not

>longer copyright is going to disproportionately be on big works owned by big holders ... which were expensive to create, generally. Remember, copyright is not intended as a "reward" or a tool for social redistribution, it is intended to incentivize creating new works. An argument can be made that allowing the $100m movie production to pay for longer copyrights than the $1,000 amateur shoot gives the creators an incentive to run bigger budget risks, because they can monetize it better. (I don't agree and I do think 28 years of blanket protection should be enough, but the argument is valid.)