Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.
I do. I made my life as an art creator. Although everything I created became property of my clients, the work product itself was a stand alone entity. Intellectual property. No different than any other thing that can be owned. A book, a song, software.
Should the McDonald's Golden Arches copyright expire?
You know how I got around Copyright Law? I created original work.
I do not object that your art is not affected by copyright law. It doesn't mean it can't negatively impact other forms of art. For example, copyright laws are a bitch for many narrative arts. Many great works of theater, cinema and literature have been influenced by older art in ways that would not be permitted if copyrights hadn't expired. Imagine Shakespeare still being copyrighted. And they're especially a bitch for music, where countless artists have faced issues for sampling, which is, like, the basis of entire music genres. Not to mention the fact that most of blues is the same few traditional songs, in a period when copyright laws weren't really enforced, and early rock artists didn't give much of a shit about taking other artist's creations and transforming them either. Entire genres have been based on recycling older or traditional works, and a lot of them are transformative enough to be valuable and original works, but not enough for copyright laws to consider them as much.
As for the McDonald's logo, I don't see this as relevant. First of all, McDonald's can just renew it. Second, the issue with logos is that companies can rip them off to mislead buyers. So I don't really see them as being the same with other works of art in terms of copyright.
What is a REALLY stupid idea is JD's idea that somehow unless works weren't copyrighted everyone would just copy older works. First of all, copyright laws still don't prevent unoriginal art from being created. Just look at Hollywood. It's just that big companies can rip things off as much as they want because they already own the copyrights to them, while independent creators don't have the same luxury. But it's not like without copyright years after the creator is dead artists wouldn't be incentivized to make original art. I'm so tired of all those artists on the radio ripping off Beethoven, said no one, ever. Artists always have an incentive to create original art works, and the ones that don't aren't really disincentivized by copyright anyways. Oh, by the way, I'm using "original" in its true sense, not in the copyright law sense (courts and legislators don't really understand the concept of something incorporating elements from other art and still being original for some reason). Copyright laws are really mostly valuable just for protecting the artists, after the artist has died they really don't do much more than making heirs rich and hampering creativity. Copyright laws can't inspire you.