Yes, the example I offered you would mean corporations (studios, record labels, publishers, software companies, etc.) would have to leave IP to the artists. It also means artists could not leave IP to heirs in a will, and it does not eliminate corporations' ability to use their greater financial means as leverage in negotiating contracts. Creators would still (and probably always will) be cherry-picked based on potential profitability.
One downside would be that US law would be dramatically different than other national (and international) copyright law. Corporations may shop around for artists outside of the USA from whom they could profit more, which could potentially make opportunities for American artists to "make it big" far more rare. But any reduction to IP duration risks that; IP reform inherently assumes that smaller but more plentiful artistic achievements are preferable to fewer but larger achievements.
It is a more radical plan than the one I made to +Michael J Pierce
. In speaking to him, I offered a plan that shortens the duration of IP legal protection especially if they are corporate-owned, so corporations might want to give artists the IP in order to profit from that IP for a longer period of time.