[kube-system]

> If I'm an (e.g.) accountant, my work does not generate income for my offspring after I pass.

Because an accountant’s work is timely and transactional. Creative works may have lasting value for multiple customers.

As a contrasting example: pretty much all other income generating assets can be passed down.

Copyright is a compromise between society and authors, and I think that’s the right way to frame things.

(Also some countries have this same compromise for assets such as land, where land “ownership” is subject to time limits)

[throw0101c]

> Creative works may have lasting value for multiple customers.

Which is why the artist may deserve royalties over a number of years: they did the work (a possible multi-year investment of time/effort can deserve a multi-year payback period). It does not explain why their (grand)children, who may not have even been born when the work was done, deserve royalties.

The Hobbit was published in 1937, and the final volume of LotR in 1955: does Simon Tolkien (b. 1959) deserve royalties?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Tolkien

[kube-system]

I didn't say anyone deserved anything -- I'm just saying that as a society we do have other (potentially) income generating assets that do pass down to heirs who didn't "do anything to deserve them".

e.g. Some cultures think it is normal that someone can own thousands of acres of wilderness land that they've never even seen just because a distant relative hundreds of years ago had a piece of paper that says they own it. Other cultures believe the earth is a collective resource that is merely used by humans for their lifetime.