That's completely unworkable. Too many loopholes. Right now copyright, in theory, has a fixed term. That is a fixed term no matter the owner: corporation, indi

That's completely unworkable. Too many loopholes. Right now copyright, in theory, has a fixed term. That is a fixed term no matter the owner: corporation, individual, estate. It can be sold (technically licensed exclusively, but same thing) and yet the term continues to be fixed. What you're suggesting SOUNDS good but in reality it would just encourage authors to claim they wrote the work under licence for a non-living entity (e.g. their own business) and then transfer the business to their descendants. Plus under your scheme you have one rule for humans and another rule for corporations with the corporations coming out MASSIVELY ahead. If Warner Studios has a movie made it might get 115 years of copyright (or whatever it is now), but if joe shmoe produces a short film they only get whatever their natural lifespan in copyright protection (which I can assure you won't be 115 years). Bad idea. Sounds good, but that's because you guys haven't given it even the most modest amount of actual thought. The only real issue with copyright is that they keep extending it. 100 years was a nice round number that would allow most individuals to profit for their whole natural lives and for a little to roll onto their descendants. Now with the way things keep getting extending, it wouldn't shock me if for all intents and purposes a lot of works NEVER fell into the public domain, they'll just keep slapping on another 10 years here, 5 years there...