> Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it?
Because information truly wants to be free, and should be. Copyright is a legal construct that exists to make it financially viable to create. Creation and innovation drives society forward.
> The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies?
They do already. There are 220,000 books published in the United States annually. What fraction will still be in print in a decade? 50 years? 100?
> That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy.
Letting works slide into the public domain doesn't prevent that. Disney still retains the ability to evolve the story (ie. create). Let Mickey and Minnie have kids, and make that part of the Mickey Mouse canon. Two hundred years from now, Disney can and should evolve their brand, including their theme parks.
Because information truly wants to be free, and should be. Copyright is a legal construct that exists to make it financially viable to create. Creation and innovation drives society forward.
> The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies?
They do already. There are 220,000 books published in the United States annually. What fraction will still be in print in a decade? 50 years? 100?
> That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy.
Letting works slide into the public domain doesn't prevent that. Disney still retains the ability to evolve the story (ie. create). Let Mickey and Minnie have kids, and make that part of the Mickey Mouse canon. Two hundred years from now, Disney can and should evolve their brand, including their theme parks.