[tzs]

> To play devil's advocate, why should people continue to be compensated for work they did long ago?

We often don't know which songs are worth millions and which are worth tens until years later.

If we believe that people who write songs should be compensated roughly proportionally to how valuable their songs are, it is hard to think of a way to actually do that which does not involve compensation long after the song is written.

[kwhitefoot]

Fair enough perhaps, but then the copyright should die with the author.

[ketzu]

The problem I see with this is that there should never be a commercial incentive to have the artist die.

[Bjartr]

If copyright doesn't die with the author then there is incentive for them to die if you would stand to inherit valuable works