Copyright should end soon enough for public adoption of a work to still be culturally significant, even if that interferes with its market viability.
You get an exclusive monopoly and profit for twenty years, that seems long enough. Expecting the gravy train to run for the rest of your life, if not longer, is excessive. And I disagree with the premise that all human creative effort would cease were that to change.
>You want to re-write the rules because 'it doesn't work' makes no sense.
I don't know why you're quoting an argument I didn't make, or why you wasted the bulk of your comment rebutting it.
Secondly and this is where the current system fails the hardest is that you have to preserve culture.
Most of the older niche content is actually preserved by piracy right now and would be gone otherwise. There's no way to preserve content in the current model, content is just created and then thrown away.
Whatever the definition, I'd probably argue that the movie The Matrix succeeded, even though it's still under copyright. That is: long copyright need not preclude that.
More to the point, I also don't mind long copyrights per se. if an individual produced a work that ensures a steady income for the rest of their life, I prefer that individual enjoying those benefits over having a free-for-all. Eg, in my opinion, a one-hit-wonder from the 80s should still profit from their one hit if that hit still generated profits.
That applies to individuals/small groups though, not for media companies. That is, I don't want the folks responsible for works that are still in our hearts and minds decades later to miss out; don't care much for businesses after initial run.
Why? That notion is not part of the current reasoning behind copyright, and I don’t buy that it should be. Feel free to make a case for it.
It seems like this idea could backfire dramatically in today’s fast-paced meme-based globally connected environment. It could be used to argue that copyrights should end the moment something becomes popular, which would undermine both the economic protection for the author, as well as the greater social good force to incentivize creating new and culturally relevant work. It could lead to the opposite of what you say you want, it could lead to lower overall cultural value.
Even if the IP is continuing to be used by the original creators, they can set the "canon" while competition might force them to do a decent job of using the IP in future.
For example, the Matrix. It had definitively entered the cultural meme pool after 20 years. If other creators could make money telling stories from that universe - whether through images, music, video - then the populace at large wanted that content. And if film number 4,5,6 are any good they make money as well.
Somewhere between the two feels more significant. Few series will run that long, and anything that does enter the public domain will be unambiguous due to its look, feel, and sound. Something like the original Star Wars (45 years old) is clearly older and is distinct from modern media in its look and feel. Something like The Lord of the Rings on the otherhand is hard to differentiate.