It doesn't necessarily benefit massive corporations more than individual artists, because those massive corporations probably also hold copyright over a lot of

It doesn't necessarily benefit massive corporations more than individual artists, because those massive corporations probably also hold copyright over a lot of works; it'd cost them huge amounts of money to renew them all. I think GP's scheme isn't awful honestly; it would have the effect of drastically lowering the practical length of copyright for most works while providing artists with a way to maintain copyright over works that are actually highly successful. (A per-year doubling might be a bit much but I think it's on the right track.) If the practical effect was that we mostly got back to the original copyright term we had in the US (14 years with the possibility to extend that once), I'd be pretty happy. Maybe start the fees after the 14th year.