> Exclusive rights over their published work encourages artists and inventors to publish their work
Do they? Please cite your studies.
It was obvious enough to the founders of the USA to bake it into our constitution.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
> [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
We don't have that. We have functionally unlimited times now. Publishing something new today puts you at risk of litigation from existing rights-holders.
I don't believe it's morally right to license music but, if I did, I'd look at the climate of lawsuits in the the last 10-15 years and conclude that the risks might outweigh the potential rewards.
I'm all in favor of reverting copyright terms to what they were before the Walt Disney Corporation was founded, but I think the idea of having a limited time to profit off of your creative works in order to incentivize their creation is still a sound concept.
The original agreement was fair to both creators and society and would never be remotely palatable to today's industry of middle-men and rights hoarders.
I wish we could have it back. I would feel a lot better about "intellectual property", morally, if we did.
That isn't a study? Even if it was a perfect idea at the time things have changed dramatically. I wouldn't want my ideas applied uncritically to some alien future. It also says "useful Arts", what it is suppose to be useful for?