[axel77]

About the duraton... Does more than 20 years make any real sense *if* we are looking on the individuals instead of "protecting" companies like Disney.

I mean 20 years are more than enough to normally make money out of a creation. If in 20 years you havent sold anything worthwhile it is very likely your stuff isnt so worthwhile afterall. If 20 years it sells well, then well you already got quite some summ for it. I mean take Harry Potter books, Rowling made hundrets of millions in a few years. Now she needs to make this til hear death and then her kids for yet another 70 years?

@Trenien, even normal property often isn't "complete" control. Altough sometimes it goes as far as allowing me to brattyly destroy it. Its often enough regulated what you may not do with some things, if you own an animal, it doesn't give you complete control over it. Same about things of cultural value (paintings). Or ground (especially e.g. wood where you may not disallow other trespassing). Or houses. Or owning a company. etc

And as said death of the author is IMHO always a rather stupid condition. No other "right" I know of is that way based on death. Like the example from above, it should not make a difference if the author is near-death, and his heirs getting all the revenues to the situation somebody turns of the machines to let him die...