[Frondo]

Why (and I realize this is one of those questions that sounds snide, but I do not mean it so) should a creator's kids gain from a piece of art or work of music after a creator's death?

Editing to clarify: I fully accept that copyright is a good thing to give incentives to people to make art and music and creative works, I just don't understand why that incentive should be transmissible to their kids, i.e. people who were presumably not involved in making it in the first place.

[nextlevelwizard]

To incentivize creative people to be productive even in their late years. Since I can only talk from my point of view; at least I would be a bit more apprehensive continuing to write and create if I knew I didn't have much time left.

I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable for the inheritors of a author to benefit for a little while for their parent's work. 10 years feels very reasonable.

[ghaff]

People pass lots of other things onto kids. Leaving aside debates about estate taxes etc., it's unclear that royalties from creative works should be uniquely disadvantaged.