Under your model any author would immediately lose protections unless they could afford the fees....
If you can't see the glaring problems there then there's no hope for you....
But hopefully you immediately recognize that it hurts the least advantaged the greatest while also providing a mechanism for anticompetitive behavior under the guise of following your precept (make the fee high enough and only established authors/publishers can hold any copyright).
I really get the feeling you didn't think it through at all....
> I really get the feeling you didn't think it through at all....
I said the structure can be discussed. There is no problem giving first number of years free to see if the IP is commercially viable. The aggressive progression (doubling every year) means that literally all IP is in public domain after a couple of decades.
You saying "it can be discussed" doesn't change that your model is flawed on its face, with no amount of extra layers of ad hoc workarounds able to overcome those blatant flaws....
A simpler solution is to start with a return to something resembling the original IP laws where one lost their rights within their own lifetime.... Theres a reason that was originally proposed, rather than lifetime protections, and why creators originally accepted it with glee... All parties need to remember those reasons, whether rights holder, state or consumer.
Private citizens get different rules than corporations might fit into a discussion. Let an author hold their personal IP. Corporate IP taxed. Might be odd for legal exposure as there wouldn't be a corporate vail.
If the IP is commercially viable then it would generate revenue to cover the fees.
If it wasn't viable then it would either never be created or would automatically enter the public domain.
Currently, if IP is not commercially viable then the author has the choice of not creating it, or creating it and releasing it under CC or just public domain. So essentially the same.
A poor writer who works full time min wage to barely scrape by and writes a masterpiece will not have the funds to cover the fees while waiting to get accepted by a publisher
To assert the model isn't blatantly flawed is absurd
"If you can't see the glaring problems there then there's no hope for you...."
Correct, but easily solved if the tax were to be based on license sales numbers and income. Small/poor license owners would pay almost nothing whereas the big players would pay plenty.
How does that resolve the issue of IP squatting that is in question?
If there's no income the fee is negligible, permitting the rights holder to squat on them for next to nothing and prevent the use of the otherwise abandoned IP by the public....
That's a separate and in some circumstances a serious problem.
For instance, an art gallery takes a photo of an artwork that's out of copyright for reference/insurance and (a) doesn't allow photos in the gallery and (b) the photo which is copyright isn't on sale (as it wasn't intended for that purpose). So the out of copyright artwork is locked up from reproduction.
Variations on this theme are a problem with galleries and museums worldwide.
If you can't see the glaring problems there then there's no hope for you....
But hopefully you immediately recognize that it hurts the least advantaged the greatest while also providing a mechanism for anticompetitive behavior under the guise of following your precept (make the fee high enough and only established authors/publishers can hold any copyright).
I really get the feeling you didn't think it through at all....