> Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid.
Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.
Yes, but if the term is 0 then the main beneficiaries will also be the publishers, only then the creators will get nothing. At least with a copyright of some form they have chance to make a recompense rather than losing _all_ the financial value of their creations to the Capitalists.
I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major brands and copyrights under one studio.)
Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes.
By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same thing.
I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't need to cost so much.
And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made to play nice.
I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from soaking up all the benefits.
I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.
Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.