Why should an artist who isn't creating new works not get paid for it if people are still paying for and enjoying the work they did create? Did they somehow magically not create it anymore after five years and no longer deserve recompensation?
I believe copyright should be until death-of-the-creator plus 25 years (the latter number is negotiable but 25 years is as good as any). It seems reasonable and fair. People in many other fields not only profit from their endeavours through their lifetimes, but can leave the fruit of their endeavours to their children. I do not see why artists should be treated differently. I certainly don't think the rights of people who didn't create anything should outweigh the rights of those who did. Any artist who feels differently is free to release their work into the public domain - the vast majority do not, of course.
I believe copyright should be until death-of-the-creator plus 25 years (the latter number is negotiable but 25 years is as good as any). It seems reasonable and fair. People in many other fields not only profit from their endeavours through their lifetimes, but can leave the fruit of their endeavours to their children. I do not see why artists should be treated differently. I certainly don't think the rights of people who didn't create anything should outweigh the rights of those who did. Any artist who feels differently is free to release their work into the public domain - the vast majority do not, of course.