[HenryBemis]

> There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore.

Perhaps not for Sum 41. But how about Beatles? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Metallica?

I don't know if people will still be listening to Swift and Eilish in 50 years from now, but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..

[dkersten]

> but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..

Sure, but should a corporation continue to make huge profits from these artist who will be long dead?

[jpc0]

Or the estate, read families, of these artists?

Not all copyright is owned or even licensed to organisations.

It really is a bad feel if you created something, then 20 years later someone releases the exact thing you created and make millions and you don't get a cent of that money.

Also many people after retirement age probably need the income from royalties a little bit more than when they were in their prime, not less.

[dkersten]

The comment I responded to said eons to come. I’m perfectly ok with tying copyright expiry to death of the artist, plus a little extra for the immediate family. I don’t, however, think that someone should be entitled to free money just because their great grandparents or other ancestor was a successful artist, the same way I don’t agree that someone should be entitled to free money because their ancestors happened to start a bank or oil company or be a monarch or whatever.

[jpc0]

I agree with this and that is what the current law defines.

That isn't what the entire comment thread is discussing though so I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies

[dotancohen]

A simple, naive solution I've seen proposed would enable copyright extension on an exponential fee scale.

This has the nice side effect of wildly-successful works disproportionately funding the copyright offices, thus enabling theoretically lower fees for newcomers.