FWIW, this is also why we have copyright. In fact, this is explicitly why we allow copyright in US.
The founders of the US intended copyright to last for 14 years, with the ability to renew for a single extra 14-year extension. Like patents, copyright was intended to expire quickly in order to serve the good of the public. Thank Disney for fucking that up for everyone. You have refuted your own argument.
But specifically a lot of us have an issue with the fact that beginning in the 20th century, copyright durations have been increasing so quickly that it's starting to look more like copyright is becoming permanent.
The founders were well aware of the negative societal effects of monopoly. We are well aware of them and suffering under several forms of monopoly today, many of which are enforced through copyright. The founders chose to grant a LIMITED and TEMPORARY monopoly to copyright holders, not an UNLIMITED and PERMANENT one, because of this. The eminently reasonable and middle of the road position is that we should reduce the duration of copyright, restoring it to its original intent. This corrects one of the general class of pro-monopoly errors we have made which have increased wealth inequality and damaged our society.
It is truly extraordinary how much damage Disney has done (with government as a willing collaborator) against the original intent of the founders and the will of the people.
Nor encorugae assassinations by having stuff go public domain immediately upon death.
We have copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
If our current implementation is not an optimal way to achieve this goal, then it needs to be re-evaluated.
The terms is too long as is, but I see no reason to not have any posthumous transfer period so the family can figure out what they want to do with their knowledge.
If you don't want to share your knowledge, the solution is simple.
Once you've put it out there, it becomes a tiny piece of human culture that can be referenced and discussed, and ultimately reproduced.
Just because an artist releases a work to the world, doesn't mean they have any natural rights to own what the culture does with it.
Whats the difference here? Have idea, share some of it, monetize it from peope who want to use it, later on it's a free for all or enough knowledge comes to easily reverse engineer it anyway.
^Just because an artist releases a work to the world, doesn't mean they have any natural rights to own what the culture does with it.
No natural right, no. But humans are greedy, tragedy of the commons, etc. So governments made copyright to protect those artists.
It's been, as usual, perverted by the people who least need that protection, but the idea is still sound. In a world of greed, give the creators time to be greedy so they can make a living off their own work. Then later on its a free for all.