[tanewishly]

You make an excellent point. Companies could eg. have 25yrs to make a profit.

On the other hand: if an artist produces something that slumbers in anonymity for decades before it suddenly explodes into popularity and becomes part of the cultural canon, then I'd want the artist to reap whatever benefits possible. That is: if anyone is making big bucks off of that, it first and foremost should be the artist, for as long as they're alive.

[benj111]

Interesting.

I'm against long term copyright, because things become part of the 'cultural canon'

Why should I pay George Lucas because I want to say "use the force luke"*

'Cultural Canon' shouldn't be owned by anyone, because it, by definition belongs to everyone.

*Yes I know thats a misquote.

[pclmulqdq]

On what basis would that form of explosion actually happen? In my understanding of the history of art, what often happens when something "slumbers in anonymity then explodes" it is quite popular in a subculture but then eventually gets mainstreamed when the mainstream culture comes around and people start to explore that subculture. In other words, it is a commercially successful product from day one.