I'm more than happy for protection to be increased.
Well there's a good argument for more than 20 years for patent protection, but I think whatever it is for patents, copyright should follow in lock step.
If so, should this inform the rule (I use those exact words very deliberately), and disregard the odd artist that might experience what they call "overnight success after many years"?
I think it should. The idea behind copyright law (and patent law) is to allow people an opportunity to capitalize on their intellectual property. The only thing an increasing copyright beyond 20 years does is provide additional protection for copyrighted work that has already been well capitalized on.
Here's a recent example.
In my view of copyright, Star Wars would have lost copyright protection around the year 2000. Someone could come along and remake Star Wars, or make a sequel (or prequel) after that. 20 years is long enough for a child to grow to adulthood having never known a world without Star Wars. The child's creative processes were influenced by that copyrighted work. If that child wants to do a Star Wars remake, does that somehow steal from George Lucas?
According to some, yes. Lucas recently sold the rights to Star Wars (and lesser titles) for billions. They would have been worth $0 if copyright were as I say.
But yet, Lucas would have been paid handsomely for his intellectual property. Not
as handsomely as if he were able to maintain his monopoly for his life plus 80 years. But handsomely none-the-less. He also has a lot of branding which others could not take from him. LucasFilms, for example, would still have been able to release a star wars prequel which many would go see simply because it was from the mind of the original creator. LucasFilms would also be able to release remastered copies of the original star wars which people would want simply because they were envisioned by the creator of a franchise they love.
The problem is that Lucas would have competition. Others could make remastered copies of the original star wars, others could make prequels, sequels, or do a series reboot entirely. In short, everyone wins.
Lucas would still have his brand, have 20 years of revenue from the original trilogy, and have incentive to continue creating. The public would have access to MORE artistic work, because the work could be more closely based on works of art from that past, and new inventors would not be stifled trying to avoid stepping on the toes of works that have influenced them their entire lives.
This is part of the reason 20 years is chosen by the way. A child is born into a world with certain intellectual products. 20 years later that child's entire view of whole industries has been shaped by the intellectual products of their youth. They invent new intellectual property inherently influenced by what came before. It is impossible to tell what they would have invented without that influence because they were born into a world with that influence.
We get around this problem in copyright by allowing artists to "sample" the works of others liberally. So much so that by the time a new song comes out, there is often a remix before you even hear about it, in some cases the remix is better than the original. In many cases I'm sure the remix siphons money from the sales of the original - despite being
heavily based on the original. The amount of copying we permit in copyright as absurd, especially when compared to the world of patents, but we do it because copyright protections are too strong. That remix would be released only 100 years from now if we protected copyrights the way they truly should be protected.
The copyright system is flawed. Kylie Minogue releases a new song, but I'd rather buy the remix, so she gets gypped the record sale by someone who stole her idea and improved it a small increment. Meanwhile we worry about whether Disney gets another few bucks if someone downloads Star Wars - something that has been on sale and capitalized on for decades.
Our copyright policy simultaneously harms some artists, and creates a public demand for derivative works so strong that they'll pay billions for absolute trash (see Star Wars).
Patent law has the answer, all we need to do is make our legal approach to intellectual property philosophically consistent.
