|
Since the original point of copyright was to encourage people to produce works for the good of society, arguably, it should be illegal for it to extend the entire life of the author. Think about it - what incentive does, for example, J.K. Rowling have to write another book EVER (not saying she's my favorite, but a good example). She's obscenely wealthy now, and rightly so, because of the success of her books. Did it take 50 years? No. Is she still alive? YES.
Yet, she's not encouraged to produce more work, because she knows that the royalties from her books will carry her on for the rest of her life, and likely most of her children's lives. This is not the point of copyright. We as a society have encouraged her to do exactly what we didn't want her to do.
For that matter, one could extend the argument by saying that if you're not currently producing work, you shouldn't be paid beyond say the first 3 years of your book's release (unless you're selling it directly to people a la Steve Jordan). The desire for the residual income waiting for you from the last book could be enough to keep you going.
Do we really think that people like Edgar Allan Poe would have been as prolific as they were with copyright the way it is today?
|