Keeping in mind the idea that creative types are given copyrights for a limited time in order to encourage them to produce more such works in the future.
While this is indeed the premise behind copyright as discussed in the US legal system, I disagree that it's fundamentally the proper way to view intellectual property. If I write a book, you cannot copy this book without my permission because it is my book. Not because buying it instead would encourage me to produce more books in the future, but because you have no right to my creative work. [Note: I could go into a full analysis of the philosophy of ownership if you wish; technically I don't consider intellectual property a right, but I don't consider physical property a right either. However, since IMHO the ways they should be treated greatly resemble rights for most purposes, it's easier to talk about them in that way.]
To receive a copyright, an unencumbered (unencrypted, etc) copy of the work must be filed with the Library Of Congress
I disagree with this. I shouldn't have to give Big Brother a copy of my essay in order to ensure that nobody else will copy it. I should be able to publish whatever zines, essays, music, etc. I want and retain full rights without submitting a copy to the US government. If I produce something, I should get to control its dissemination, period. If I hate the LOC and don't want them to have a copy, that's perfectly fine; hell i should be able to grant everyone except the LOC full rights to use my work, if that's what I want to do.
Copyright will last for a period of 20 years. Any copyrights issued prior to this will expire in 20 years or when their prior copyright would expire whichever comes first
Now the idea of time-limited copyright makes sense to me. Property rights are not inalienable, so it's justifiable to place limits on them (for example, your property in the form of money is taken from you by the government to pay for public works projects, schools, defense, welfare, etc.). The exactly timeframe might be debatable, but 20 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable. If I were to pick a period I'd probably pick something closer to 30-40 years though, to cover the majority of the life of the creator.
No corporate entity may be issued a copyright. Corporations are by their nature incapable of the creative act. While it is true a corporation may fund individuals or groups of people who do create, the corporation itself has created nothing.
I disagree with that. Take, for example, a game like Deus Ex. No one person has created anything of significant value. Sure, somebody created some AI, somebody created some artwork, etc., but none of it was particularly important. The corporation, on the other hand, created a game. The corporation's role was not as incidental publisher, it was as creator.
If ownership of a copyright is transferred to a corporation, its term shall be reduced to a maximum of ten years from date of transfer or the current copyright expiration, whichever comes first.
I don't see any real reason for this. The originaly copyright holder should have unconditional license, in my opinion, to do whatever he wants with those works. If he'd like to allow a corporation to exercise his rights in return for cash, I don't see a problem with that. A scheme like this would just lead to rampant circumvention, with the original copyright holder retaining rights officially, but signing contracts in effect giving someone else (either another person, an organization, or a corporation) control over their use.
Once a copyright expires, the covered work will be in the public domain. If the original creator hasn't been encouraged to create anything more by this time, they probably aren't going to.
Well yes, that's how things currently work as well. Works on which copyright has expired are not copyrighted.
Copyrights may be renewed for a progressive annual extension fee.We are no longer talking about encouraging the creator, but allowing them to retain control in exchange for a fee paid to the government.(What is Steamboat Willie really worth to Disney?) Now they must pay to mainatin the copyright and must pay more each year.
I don't think this is a good idea at all. It'd just create copyright protection for the rich. Unless you're going to engage in some massive appraisal scheme in which you hire "independent" appraisors to determine the value of the work, and then charge a percentage of that; I don't think that'd be workable though.