It makes it cost effective for content which is highly profitable. A corporation isn't going to pay to keep garbage registered at a high fee but an individual will pay to keep something that is raking in mountains of cash. Not that it really matters much because virtually everything stops bringing in any money at all by 30 years. The only things that continue to have value are names and characters.

The exact names and likenesses might be preserved via Trademark as a form of consumer protection.

Meanwhile, derivative like works could still be created as long as they were clear to not confuse consumers.

> A corporation isn't going to pay to keep garbage registered at a high fee

Look at patent registry

The fees are neither high nor increasing with time.

They are not high but in many countries they do increase with time: e.g. in Germany the maintenance fee is 70 EUR in the third and fourth years, increasing year by year to 1940 EUR in the 20th year (and 4520 EUR in the 26th year in the case of supplementary protection)

https://www.dpma.de/docs/english/formulare/allg_eng/a9510_1....

Have the fee be based time but scale with profits. So that author making 5k/year's fees may only would only have the fee increase by a few hundred per renewal whereas a company making 500k/year would see their fees go up by a few thousand per renewal etc. As an example.

Then you kick off an arms race where regulators are constantly fighting to keep up with increasingly sophisticated money laundering techniques to obscure how valuable an IP actually is. A lot of money would be siphoned off by lawyers just so they can fight back to a stalemate.

Why make it complicated? Just let works fall into the public domain after a couple decades.

Indeed, the one thing that can't be manipulated by dubious actors is time.

That introduces a massive accounting element. At least the current system is simple. By all means, shorten copyright terms. But let's not make it a complex mess that no one can really figure out.

"Hollywood Accounting" just means that works will never generate a profit..

So include a condition like "for twice the (undervalued) amount you state, anybody can ...".

If they price they quoted was fair, they should be more than happy to sell it for twice that. If it was too low, well shouldn't have lied. If it is too high, more money to the public.

Yes, and adds a nice tax to the mix.

From the tone of your post, you seem to think this is a problem. If so, why?

So corporations can renew copyrights but not most individuals in practice. That seems problematic. Because, I don't know, the cards are already so stacked against individual content creators we don't want to make things worse?

If we really care about getting the content released to the commons as early as possible, just apply a single shortened date to everyone.

On the other hand, the more valuable content can in commercial use for longer.

It is as large an obstacle to the hoarding and disappearing of content corporations do today as any alternative, so I'd go for the easiest, whatever that is.

I think the argument is that a corporate entity would be willing to lose a large amount of money by extending copyrights on their back catalog, if only to keep those works from competing with their current offerings that make them loads of money.

A strong enough exponent, and the costs of holding the old works back would very quickly eclipse the protected profits.

A single shortened date is a good start.

I don't have a problem with 'buy an extension to copyright', though - that money can fund public goods that benefit everyone.

Can you name any piece of intellectual property that has a small, recurring income after 30 years?