[dmitriid]

1. Immaterial rights are not material rights

2. Private property is a false analogy

3. Copyright was established for two reasons: a) to let the author (and only the author) to profit from their immaterial work. b) to facilitate the free exchange of ideas

[clon]

That is kind of the point - why is the dad who wields a pencil going to have to leave his children in a worse position than a dad who wielded a hammer.

[xamuel]

The dad who wields a pencil is paid for his art, and he can use that money to buy a house.

[dmitriid]

Let's say "a dad who wielded a hammer" is a dad who builds and sells furniture.

Are his children entitled to every piece of furniture this "dad who wielded a hammer" ever built? As it was already mentioned "The dad who wields a pencil" can just as easily buy a house and leave it to his children.

The problem with immaterial things is that they can be trivially copied. In this sense copyright law is more akin to patents: you get protection and possiblity to profit off of your immaterial work.

[clon]

Nothing stopping from renting out the house in your lifetime, only to leave it for your children once you cease to be.