> Literally a book can be written in a day, published electronically the same day and published overnight. Hard disagree. Nothing good can possibly be written

> Literally a book can be written in a day, published electronically the same day and published overnight. Hard disagree. Nothing good can possibly be written that fast, even with an army of writers. >Surely the term should be going down, not up. IP today is far more expensive than in the past, so going down is not reasonable. 3 years as you suggested is laughable. Some books don't even hit multiple markets in that time. Would any publisher pay an author if they could just wait the author out for 3 years??? >You get your choice of copyright as we have today XOR non-discriminatory non-DRM distribution. This sentence doesn't make sense. Nor does the idea. What is the point of having any right if your only enforcement mechanism is one that literally loses you money? There would be no party for consumer-grade IP that would be a suitable target for a lawsuit. Maybe a publisher might be able to raise a case against a solitary infringer, because they own enough individual IPs to add up to something against another business. But the people actually consuming IP could never be sued this way. I actually hate DRM and avoid it. But it solves a real problem and I can't deny that. >Copyright is not automatic. You have to publish the work to the Library of Congress and the publication fee is $1000 for one year. You can extend as long as you like but each additional year costs 10x what the previous year cost (pick your favorite exponential values) This has to be a joke. Have you heard the term "starving artist"? Do you realize that some copyrighted work (such as code) is constantly being updated, so it would be overwhelmingly stupid to have such a policy? Then there are news reports and blogs, etc., which cannot possibly be registered fast enough, and also would not necessarily generate $1000 a piece.