> Copyright laws are designed to ensure that authors and performers receive compensation for their labors without fear of theft and to encourage them to continue their work. The laws are not intended to provide income for generations of an author’s heirs, particularly at the cost of keeping works of art out of the public’s reach.
How are they not, when they're set at decades past the author's death? The Berne Convention mandates that all works other than photography and cinematography are to be copyrighted until at least 50 years past the author's death.
And as usual countries are free to go even further: the European "Copyright Directive" (2001/29/EC) extends it to 70 years (as does the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 in the US).
How is this anything but providing income for generations of an author's heir exactly?
Providing income for heirs is not unreasonable. Former U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant did exactly that with his memoirs, which saved his family from poverty after his death [1].
Well for a start it gives the publishers some long term security to encourage investment. Imagine all rival record companies being able to press a work the moment the original author dies. More worryingly, imagine business rivals having a vested interest in the early death of artists...
I think you missed my point which was that publishers will never make an initial investment if they feel it has no protection (or at least they will make less investment for less protection, which will eventually feedback to the artists investing less of their time for less reward). Furthermore, scouting for talent is one of the primary ways in which publishing businesses 'freely compete.'
But publishers, prior to local Copyright laws, were more than willing to make hefty investments, even without protection. In fact, they competed to make the best offer to artists and authors.
Read the book "Against Intellectual Monopoly." It details cases like this and more. See also links posted by others here, which detail similar cases.
How are they not, when they're set at decades past the author's death? The Berne Convention mandates that all works other than photography and cinematography are to be copyrighted until at least 50 years past the author's death.
And as usual countries are free to go even further: the European "Copyright Directive" (2001/29/EC) extends it to 70 years (as does the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 in the US).
How is this anything but providing income for generations of an author's heir exactly?