The only copyright I would ever support is for a content creator to “own” a piece such that they can claim the exclusive rights to say “I created this”, and for them to directly profit off of that work so long as they were adequately servicing demand for that work.

So if a novelist kept their materials in print - or, at least, had a contract with a publishing house that would ensure that anyone could purchase a copy at any time - that novelist wouldn’t have their work return to the public domain until they died, or until a decade after initial publication, whichever happened last.

But any work could be “challenged” by having a separate individual or org put forth a request for a limited production run, in order to demonstrate any shortfall in supply. If that run doesn’t demonstrate shortfall (with the current producer keeping production unchanged), they would have to hand over all profits to the current rights holder. But if there is a shortfall, they can become an authorized second producer, capable of keeping a slice of the profits. And if no demand is being satisfied at all, the work can be returned to the public domain for anyone to satisfy market demand without restriction.

And note: any and all copyright could only be held by an individual, or by a group of individuals who were all directly involved with the creation of the work. Companies would be wholly ineligible for owning any copyright. And copyrights could not be pre-transferred by any workplace agreement… only post-creation agreements could be made on a per-creation basis, and would need to be ratified by an anticapitalist, bipartisan clearing institution. Creators could lease said creations to their employers, but would have extra protections against revenge actions by their employer.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm