CattyNebulart Wrote:I put that in my stuff about the social contract but let me be more clear. It goes against of the purpose of copyright to make more. If an artist is good we want to encourage them to make more, not retire after one album. There are other reasons but that is one of the big ones.Your premise is flawed, because I do not agree at all that that should be the purpose of copyright. The purpose of copyright should be to reward artists for making works of lasting interest and value. Harper Lee deserves profits from To Kill A Mockingbird more than you do. I find the concept that artists should be blackmailed into trying to make more commercially successful works by taking away their right to their own work as reprehensible and selfish.
If you create a company from the ground up you can remain a major stockholder and continue to receive profits from it long after you retire. You can then pass that down to your children (and indeed, them to their children and so forth). Any sort of real estate you own is passed to your children as well, and so on and so forth. I do not see why an artist should not be able to bequeath the fruits of their own labour to their children. I think that their desires supersede those of the public, who did nothing to earn the right to do what they want with the work. And no, since I specifically said "life plus a certain amount of years to provide for children", that does not form a basis for copyright to be extended indefinitely.
I won't bother dignifying your "bridge builder" analogy except to note that it would only work if every member of a movie's crew got royalties forever.