Not for e. g. 70 years.

I think most people are in support of some financial incentives via protection, but 70 years is just insane.

And still would all the same with a 20 year term instead of what we have now…

It’s so rare for any work to still be making money that long that it would hardly change the calculation.

Sure. I think copyright is broken far beyond just the length of it, but let's focus on the length of copyright. There's a phenomenon called the Copyright Cliff, where works published from the early to mid 20th century are unavailable far more often than older books. The Atlantic wrote about Paul J. Heald's study of this back in 2013.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-h...

> There were as many books available from the 1910s as there were from the 2000s. The number of books from the 1850s was double the number available from the 1950s. Why? Copyright protections (which cover titles published in 1923 and after) had squashed the market for books from the middle of the 20th century, keeping those titles off shelves and out of the hands of the reading public.

> Heald has now finalized his research and the picture, though more detailed, is largely the same: "Copyright correlates significantly with the disappearance of works rather than with their availability," Heald writes. "Shortly after works are created and proprietized, they tend to disappear from public view only to reappear in significantly increased numbers when they fall into the public domain and lose their owners."

If anything, the more popular the work, the faster it should be put into the public domain.

A kid growing up obsessed with a franchise is unlikely to ever be permitted to create and sell derivative works within their lifetime.