I've chosen an aspect that few people take the time to really explore in detail. More often they concentrate on the diminished 'Fair Use' inherent in the DMCA or the trend of extending copyright for 20 years every 20 years, a trend that will see the Public Domain unchanged forever.
Here, however, we'll take a look at the 'inspiration' value of IP, an undeniable aspect that everyone is affected by. It's the thing that makes you smile when you inadvertently say something the same way someone said it in a movie, the reason behind humming a popular song and suddenly making up your own words for it, words that fit your current mood and situation. It's the factor that sends people to their word processors in a flurry of activity to get that idea for an X-Files episode down in writing.
Those activities mentioned above are all legal - until you start doing them in public. Once you bring these little things into the public eye, perhaps the first for a skit in a comedy show, the second a new song for your band to try out at their gig on Friday, and the third posted to the internet to share with all your online X-Files friends, then you open yourself up for litigation which you probably cannot win.
One of the most important reasons for works to make the status change from private ownership to the freedom of the Public Domain is Derivitive Works. While under copyright, these are limited to the copyright owner, who must give permission for any derivitives made. Sherlock Holmes on the Holo-Deck in Star Trek:The Next Generation might have never happened if Holmes were still held by copyright. Disney's The Jungle Book wouldn't have been made had royalties and permissions been required. Clash of the Titans could have been prevented by owners of Bulfinch's Mythology. West Side Story was a blatant theft of Shakespeare's story of Romeo and Juliet, perhaps his heirs wouldn't give permission.
There are thousands of examples - current works made from those freely available in the Public Domain. All of them 'inspired' by those works.
But what does the modern creator do? What can they do when this kind of inspiration strikes them? They can only make the attempt to acquire permission, else their derivitive work must go untold, or in some cases they must give up their rights in the new work in order to have it published. Is this the right way to treat someone who was 'inspired' by an existing work?
This is where we come to my new analogy. IP is not some piece of solid ground that someone can simply own. IP is like a stallion, let loose on the open range. It is alive and quite capable of spreading its genes to others. But the owners of that stallion have convinced the law that the foals it fathers should not be born, or, if they are born, should belong solely to the stallion's owner.
Farmers, for centuries, have argued the responsibilities for livestock set loose on the range, those that cross fences (or break them down) and other issues of unplanned breeding. None of the rules hammered out through years of common law, the king's interventions, or state and local U.S. laws remotely describes an owner who may turn their stallion or bull loose on the range and then claim all the offspring. Yet, this is exactly what modern copyright law does with those derivitive works.
As a writer myself, I do want to keep control of my characters, my universes, my storylines. But I'm honest enough to know why and the reasons are purely selfish. I don't want anyone else playing in my sandbox. Which, I suppose, is fine so long as I keep my sandbox to myself as well. IP kept private by the owners isn't at issue; noone will miss what they don't know about. When the sandbox is placed into the public eye, where everyone can see how nice a sandbox it is, and their imagination takes hold and starts to think about how much fun they could have in the sandbox, though, it isn't just the owner's sandbox any longer. He's chosen to share it with the world. Why then, I must ask, should the owner be able to kick every one out when they want to play, after he's clearly advertised how much fun it is?
If someone takes my story and makes a movie out of it - yes, I think I should be compensated. But if someone reads my story, takes my characters and my universe and writes their own story, I think all they should have to do is acknowledge the source of their inspiration, my original story. They did the work; I don't need to be paid for being an inspiration - I would be honored to be an inspiration. If I don't like the story, I'll cringe and wish I hadn't been an inspiration, and if it is better than anything I'd written, I'll feel just as badly (though in a different way) but, I don't think I should have the RIGHT to reject someone else's work merely because I inspired it.
In many ways, the scope of copyright is more important than the length. So long as another author is capable of creating derivitive works, without the need to worry about getting permission and possibly losing the potential for copyright on the new work, the lock on copyright would be limited to the exact duplicate, such things as condensed versions, and long quotations. Musical sampling might still be a problem - though an expanded 'Fair Use' doctrine would free that use as well.
Ideas are not supposed to be protected by copyright. Control of derivitive works, however, gives the copyright owner control of the ideas as well. Luke Skywalker is not an expression; he's an idea as is the 'Force', 'The Empire' and 'Jedi Knights.' The specific events in 'Star Wars,' the way it was told in the book by George Lucas and the movie - those are the expression the should be protected by copyright. Giving Lucasfilm Ltd. exclusive rights to all works containing any part of his universe is directly giving the corporation the rights to the ideas behind and within it.
I would argue that the Star Wars universe is a sandbox, advertised and marketed to the entire world. I also know, from personal experience, that the Star Wars sandbox is an amazing place to play. I would like to share the times I've played there with others, but, because I firmly believe that copyright should be vested only in the author of the specific expression, I am unable to even submit my stories to be considered for publication.
Others post their stories online, hoping not to be noticed by the copyright owner, placing Disclaimers on their works that indicate no infringement is intended. Intended or not, a judge, following the letter of the law written in Title 17 of the U.S. Code, would decide against the author. Fan Fiction stories are copyright infringement and the copyright owner is held blameless for providing the inspiration. I consider them an accessory before the fact and equally responsible.
If the control of derivitives were removed, the public would most certainly benefit. It would mean returning copyright to the protection of the specific expression only with no idea protection whatsoever. As was intended. Copyright owners should not have the right to control the progeny inspired by their creations. Inspiration cannot be contained and it is wrong to try.