Why is it a fundamental freedom of the author to restrict who gets the freedom to share their enjoyment of the author’s works with others?

In practice, almost no author gets to choose how the fruits of their labor are distributed. Their rights are gobbled up immediately by one of the big publishers, who then dispose of their captive intellectual property as they see fit.

To the publisher, if copyright was to terminate upon death, would the publisher then pay less for the works from a 70 year old author compared to a 30 year old? Or one that is fighting cancer or one that has sky diving as a hobby?

Is the value of the work of the author to be measured against their remaining lifetime?

The author chooses the publisher.

In most cases this isn't accurate. The author (or, more commonly, their agent) submits the book to several publishers, who either accept or reject or refer for edits. Unless you're in the top percentile of published authors, there's very little room for negotiation. It's pretty rare for an author to have more than one "accept" on a work simultaneously, many publishers frown on multiple submission precisely because it can lead to a bidding war.

The author always chooses the publisher. They might not have many (or even multiple) options, but there is no coercion and the author can choose to keep looking for a different publisher, to go with a lower-tier publisher, to publish themselves, to publish via vanity press, or not to publish at all.

First of all I’m not saying we should do this just because it’s what I believe. I’m saying we should all actually spend time considering the value of this proposal and make up our own minds. But I’m not looking for knee-jerk responses, there’s too much at stake. We seriously need to consider the implications of the current system which requires vast stores of information that are freely available to be removed from public access.

Second, the only way authors can have this “freedom” you argue for is through vast sweeping government-mandated restrictions on and punishments for the sharing of information. Authors can only have this freedom by taking away the freedom of would-be librarians like IA, and only with massive government interventions. My proposal eliminates the need for government intervention in markets.

And this isn’t strictly some lefty idea either. I’ve really enjoyed this talk by a libertarian capitalist lawyer at the Mises Institute arguing that intellectual property as a concept hampers capitalism. It’s full of a bunch of great arguments and since you seem to be interested in this subject I’d encourage you to check it out!

https://youtu.be/cWShFz4d2RY

Curiously libertarian language for supporting a system built on restricting individual freedom.

Agreed. In a sibling comment I just shared this lecture by a libertarian capitalist at the Mises institute arguing that intellectual property restrictions hamper capitalism.

https://youtu.be/cWShFz4d2RY

Maybe the person isn't libertarian then and you just misread said libertarian undertones? I'm not sure what's the point here, he can argue for some positions that might be libertarian in isolation, without being libertarian at all.

Do you agree that humans should be free to associate with other humans for example? Does that make you a libertarian? What about cannabis prohibition?