Also, different terms for different works. Having the same rules for software, drugs, books, paintings etc. is ridiculous.
Software should require disclosure of details of what is protected (e.g. the source) so it can be public used post expiry - just as patents give you a monopoly only what is disclosed in the patent.
I'd add that functionally dependent software that is used for the items primary purpose, or its features, should also receive little to no protection, and be disclosed up-front.
Software should require disclosure of details of what is protected (e.g. the source) so it can be public used post expiry - just as patents give you a monopoly only what is disclosed in the patent.