[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