Pushing for copyright change is actual change. It's just unlikely to happen while our law makers are representing the interests of corporations instead of the people.
And this will end up only hurting smaller creators. Disney can afford to churn out a ton of content every few years, whereas a novel/movie/art/etc. may be an individual's life's work.
It means what I wrote it means - there's no inherent reason why any content creator should be entitled to rent for a text they wrote or image they put together for their whole lifetime. A carpenter selling his work of art doesn't get rent for 70 years. Neither does a painter. Or a software developer based on the code they commited. What makes a writer or a singer (in reality, for MOST content that would be a publisher megacorporation) so special, that they deserve rent until end of life for a piece of text they wrote?
Let me reiterate, VAST, VAST majority of all cultural works aren't owned by authors themselves, but their publishers which don't pass on most of the rent they collect. Huge piece of this is owned by rent-seeking megacorporations collecting rent for things they did not create and which royalty agreements have passed long since.
Make copyright 20 years - most profits from content are made in first 5 years. 15 extra on top to be fair. After that, the artists will just actually have to create something new to earn money - just like everyone else in the world.
In no way are smaller creators "hurt" by shortening copyright. They'd still be able to enjoy their special privileges long enough to make plenty of money, and can continue to make money on their works long after they have entered the public domain.
