Somebody else owning the solution to our problems is why we tolerate such abuse. Otherwise we could cut out the abuse parts and solve the problem directly.
3) I was unspecific about how much money they'd get ahead of time versus upon completion because I figure that ought to be a case-by-case thing.
The idea that people should be able to live well based on having done good work in the past is a good one. Let's make that happen, but why should it have anything to do with property? If I build a particularly strong bridge which surpasses expectations re: longevity shouldn't I get the same retroactive compensation as somebody who wrote a particularly good book? If I publish freely the cure for a disease, should society not reward me to a greater extent than if I sold the patent to a company that will decline to act on the discovery because it's more profitable to treat that disease than to cure it?
The things you seem to want from intellectual property are important, but pushing the concept of property beyond what is natural for it is a harmful way to achieve them.
A) its not working particularly well for the artists
B) its not working at all for workers outside that domain
C) it has all kinds of really awful side effects which are far more harmful than whatever good we can reasonably expect it (property) to do.
When IP was invented to justify the church's right to prevent the wrong kind of bible from being printed we didn't have the ability to implement the alternatives that are available to us today. The best we could do is play-by-the-rules-or-we'll-take-your-printer. We have new capabilities now, let's solve these problems head on instead of leaning on ideas from the 1600's to do so.
