Generally the current system makes sense because capital is taking the risk and paying the labor up front to produce something that is also generally the idea o

Generally the current system makes sense because capital is taking the risk and paying the labor up front to produce something that is also generally the idea of the group with the capital and the up front payment is determined by supply and demand dynamics in the labor market. Specific to the case of copyright, the idea to reduce copyright term is correct because the natural competitive state of the world is for ideas to be copied by everybody and be pushed to their marginal cost of production quickly (that number is so close to zero for digital media that it should just be thought of as zero). Copyright is fixing the market failure of the fixed cost of media production being unaccounted for in the natural market outcome and that negative spread dissinsentiving new content production. So the correct term to set copyright for is one that insentivizes most media creation with the minimum intervention in the natural market outcome and one has to be insane to think anyone is making new content because of returns from holding a monopoly on its production for more than ten to fifteen years. All the rest of the term is just about unjustly enriching capital, at great cost to society from deadweight loss due to the cost of reproduction not going to zero, by limiting competition for new creations from old creations and capturing residual income from the fraction of one percent of the works that are still financially viable after 15 years.