Given the context of this forum, I expect most of us to favor liberalization to some degree, but what are your specific views?
I think the ideal scenario would be one where everything is available "for free" and you can name your price a posteriori, if you thought the work was money-worthy and are able to spend money on it. Digital distribution would have to be left to some form of P2P filesharing (as already occurs with update patches and free games), so that publishers don't have to bear the costs of supplying to those who can't or won't want to donate, which is not unreasonable. So, basically, legalizing the current status quo... perhaps even improving upon it, by avoiding situations like having to buy a physical copy you don't need because it's the only way to purchase in your area. This scheme has been fairly successful among those who dared to try it - mostly independent game developers and musicians - and Patreon and OnlyFans (tee hee) prove it can also be extended to a subscription model. It also does not preclude profits from stuff that can't be downloaded: live performances, theater showings, physical items, etc.
However, that would be a very drastic change from what we have now. I think an scenario that is more likely (or less unlikely) to succeed is as follows. Make copyright protection start from the moment a work is published, not the author's death, and reduce the period to 20 years. I think that's more than enough to reap reasonable compensation for the creativity and effort involved, and would not disallow continuing to sell copies or accepting donations afterwards - but it wouldn't be a crime (as far as the law is concerned) to download a movie or game from two decades ago only to find out it wasn't even good, or upload VHS rips from old series that have faded into obscurity. I believe anyone who is into abandonware, or remembers the FIFA 99 fiasco that forced Underground-Gamer to shut down, will likely be sympathetic of this view.
