[danieltillett]

Actually not at all. I believe from all I have read about Picasso he would have been a productive artist even if no copyright existed - he was a great artist and creating art was at his core.

I actually buy a lot of art - I have long since run out of wall space to hang it all :) None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role in why they are an artist.

[jrmurad]

> I believe from all I have read about Picasso > None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role

You seem to be presuming to know the motivations of every artist to have existed based on your personal experience. Is it so inconceivable to you that there may be someone who, let's say, is considering writing a book, wouldn't at all be motivated by how much money he could earn in return for the investment of his time? And take into account the fact that he could potentially sell the rights for considerably more, the longer copyright guarantees exclusive rights to the owner?

[danieltillett]

The value of lengthly copyright is basically zero to any rights buyer at the time of production due to the very high discount rate used in the arts and publishing industry. If it weren't zero then publishers would pay more to young authors than old authors. If you can find one artist that has ever said they create more because their heirs can live off the copyright 50 years after they are dead please show us.

The only value to retrospective copyright extension is to give a windfall profit to rights holders long after the artist is dead. It is outright theft of our cultural heritage.