It absolutely is if they want to do that for 90 years instead of some more reasonable time. Noone is disputing the right to charge money for creative works.

The relevant quote from the great-grandpost: "As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine, if someone else wants to use it for whatever purposes, that party has to ask for, and get permission, to do so. Which I might or might not give."

Your response isn't addressing what my response was addressing.

If there is no copyright there is an incentive to monetize it as much as possible and provide as much service back to the public as possible. If there exists copyright then it should be taxed as property tax.

Let me tell you a secret: revenue from royalities is taxed as income.

I'm no financial expert, but Googling copyright tax lead me to this:

> In general, copyrights and patents generate royalty income reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, unless it is characterized as business income reported on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business (Sole Proprietorship). However, who owns the intellectual property, i.e., the creator or the party who requested its development, also determines the type of income reported. The proper classification of royalties also affects the recipient’s tax liability in other ways, including self-employment tax, investment interest deduction limitations, and the new 3.8% net investment income tax on unearned income.

Seems like that is already the case.

${Build a house, Write a book} and get money for it for $years afterwards — smells like rent to me.

This doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, especially given the economic realities of the world we find ourselves in, but it does seem more than a bit rent-y.

You very likely take out a loan from the bank, give the bank possession of the deed, and you pay off a bank in a few decades. You can very much pay it off in one lump sum, but few can afford it, and those that can won't do it anyway, because future money is cheaper than present money (overtime. There are huge fluctuations like in 2008).

Meanwhile, if you need a payment plan to pay off a book, you're in a very dark place and you probably should simply pirate it. But selling a book to person B in 20 years doesn't sound like "rent", despite the fact that I have heard that "media older than 10 years is fair game to pirate". 10 years in industry can be a step for an artist, not a career's worth of time like the original copyright law time period.

> if you need a payment plan to pay off a book, you're in a very dark place and you probably should simply pirate it

You appear to be arguing against buying a house/book when I wrote about building/writing?

As in, if I write a book, and then thanks to copyright law own the right to make copies (hence the name) I and my estate get to make money from every new[0] copy sold for 70 years after death. That's what I'm saying smells like rent.

[0] But not re-sold copies because first-sale doctrine, and I hope equivalents but that's a US law and I don't know what if anything is the equivalent in my jurisdiction, but I hope there is.