I think copyright did, but no longer, benefit society.
The stated goal is to encourage creation of the arts, but looking at how hit-driven arts are, and also at how much more is created than bought[0], there's too much content being made.
Most people want to read books in the top 100 best seller list, of which there are necessarily 100 in whatever period that list is re-calculated; or to watch the latest blockbusters, whose number in any given month I don't know but assume isn't much higher than the number of screens in a large cinema complex.
But that doesn't mean get rid of it entirely; my (admittedly just a) gut feeling is that 20 years should be enough to claim a monopoly on derivative works, even if we retain an average human lifespan for the original and direct translations. This is separate to trademarks: I think by this point, I should be able to combine Short Circuit and The Matrix into a shared universe if I want to, but it's still a matter of consumer protection to make sure nobody mistakes such a creation for either of the source materials.
One thing I absolutely I don't buy is the arguments for copyright protection being "life plus 70 years", which seem to circulate around authors wanting their kids to inherit their residual income. Most people don't get to inherit almost anything, but even if they did, someone's kids will probably[1] live for as many years after the parent's death as the parent lived before that child's birth, not usually 70 years after the parent dies.
[0] with exceptions; furry artists report viable income.
[1] barring radical changes to life expectancy from global thermonuclear war and/or post-singularity life extension.
The stated goal is to encourage creation of the arts, but looking at how hit-driven arts are, and also at how much more is created than bought[0], there's too much content being made.
Most people want to read books in the top 100 best seller list, of which there are necessarily 100 in whatever period that list is re-calculated; or to watch the latest blockbusters, whose number in any given month I don't know but assume isn't much higher than the number of screens in a large cinema complex.
But that doesn't mean get rid of it entirely; my (admittedly just a) gut feeling is that 20 years should be enough to claim a monopoly on derivative works, even if we retain an average human lifespan for the original and direct translations. This is separate to trademarks: I think by this point, I should be able to combine Short Circuit and The Matrix into a shared universe if I want to, but it's still a matter of consumer protection to make sure nobody mistakes such a creation for either of the source materials.
One thing I absolutely I don't buy is the arguments for copyright protection being "life plus 70 years", which seem to circulate around authors wanting their kids to inherit their residual income. Most people don't get to inherit almost anything, but even if they did, someone's kids will probably[1] live for as many years after the parent's death as the parent lived before that child's birth, not usually 70 years after the parent dies.
[0] with exceptions; furry artists report viable income.
[1] barring radical changes to life expectancy from global thermonuclear war and/or post-singularity life extension.