What I'm looking at is the clarity value of copyright - do I know what things are and aren't copyrighted? I'm working on a social media startup right now, and managing copyright is tricky as it is. My concern here is that if copyright were only 20 years, removing copyrighted content would become even harder, making it even more difficult to compete with Meta / Google / etc.

I can't imagine finding out if something is older than 20 years would be prohibitively expensive - especially when those other platforms would have to do the same thing were copyright limits to change, meaning infrastructure would probably rapidly be developed to enable it. Most platforms don't even care, and Google just lets anyone claim anything and leaves it to the claimants to sort out.

And then people won't release their works. Why should I invest time/energy/my money/long nights not spent having fun to create something that I won't own, have control over, or profit from? What is my incentive. Sure, some people are down for that, but we created copyright laws because otherwise we miss out on a ton of valuable stuff to society, more valuable than handing over copyright works to the public. Society decided this and has benefited hugely (as in hands). You want to re-write the rules because 'it doesn't work' makes no sense. We have record amounts of IP being created, how does it not work? Are there not books being written? So it's working. Are there movies being made? So it's working. Are there video games being made? So it's working. Is there music being made? So it's working. Are business processes being improved? So it's working. Show HOW it's not working on a level that we risk destroying all of that creation and those creators livelihoods and incomes. And not 'it's not working, 20 years only!'. That is not an argument.

>Why should I invest time/energy/my money/long nights not spent having fun to create something that I won't own, have control over, or profit from?

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.

First there's a lot of content which isn't produced because of the restrictions, you just don't see it. Remixes, different takes into existing content.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean with "culturally significant public adoption".

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.

> Copyright should end soon enough for public adoption of a work to still be culturally significant, even if that interferes with its market viability.

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.