[twstws]

> In your system where copyright dies with the author, the interests of others who might invest in a project or stand to gain from it (like a creator's children) are not looked after.

This is the problem, I think. If a product requires investors, then I can accept that their interests should be looked after. Not for the ridiculous term that copyright currently allows, but it is reasonable that their protection should not be strictly limited to the life of the author.

However, the current system goes to great lengths to protect the interests of people merely because they have something to gain, not because they actively contributed anything. If I make cars for a living, I don't expect or demand that my children continue to receive a royalty for each mile driven in one of my cars after i die (or just retire). They are taken care of through my estate, insurance etc, not by perverting the market.

I don't think author's children are inherently more deserving of social protections than anyone else. Jk Rowling's kids would be just fine if copyright lasted only twenty years. If they want a secure income after that, they should be able to do some productive work of their own.

[earbitscom]

> I don't think author's children are inherently more deserving of social protections than anyone else. Jk Rowling's kids would be just fine if copyright lasted only twenty years. If they want a secure income after that, they should be able to do some productive work of their own.

You could say the same about any kid who inherits wealth, and while you might be right, this just encourages people to focus on short term wealth creation, which also has implications for society.

[bambax]

> You could say the same about any kid who inherits wealth

No, you couldn't. If your dad is a car salesman and makes a fortune, you can inherit his wealth, but not his recurring revenue (once he's dead he's not selling cars anymore).

Harry Potter books will continue to earn money for their author's descendants after her death, in addition to all the money they earned for the author directly (and which will have been inherited by her kids). That's a unique feature of intellectual property.

[earbitscom]

That's exactly the point. Why do we want to let one person pass the value of what they've done along to their children and not another? One man sells a car and generates $1000 in value for his family, he dies, they get it. Another writes a novel, dies 3 weeks before it's published, it is a masterpiece, but his family doesn't earn a dime. Sounds pretty lame.

[twstws]

It sounds lame, but it in no way reflects reality, so i don't understand what your point is. Under the current system, the recently deceased authors book would earn royalties for his estate for 75 years. Grand children he's never met will benefit financially from his work. We grant them a monopoly, and get no social benefit. This is a perversion of the intent of copyright, which was to promote more creative work.

Simple inheritance is categorically different. Your inheriting money from your family has no negative impact on others. But if you inherit an intellectual monopoly, it is taking something away from the public good for no benefit. That may be acceptable for a reasonably limited term. But how anyone can imagine a copyright term that extends across multiple generations is reasonable is beyond me.