I just gave you one. The publisher will suppress uses of content from your books long after you are dead. Maybe the kind of book you write isn’t the sort for which that matters. In the case of Frost’s poetry, it does. Copyright and patent law as currently instituted impedes rather than promotes progress in the sciences and (useful) arts. I’m glad you’re happy with how your publisher treats you.
My estate would probably do the same. (After all, I have a young family to support.)
Either way, it seems to me that the real issue is how long copy protection should last. Many people are saying that the current law has extended copyrights too much. I think that is a conversation worth having.
Maybe the kind of book you write isn’t the sort for which that matters.
Probably not.
In the case of Frost’s poetry, it does. Copyright and patent law as currently instituted impedes rather than promotes progress in the sciences and (useful) arts.
I have heard the argument, but remain unconvinced. I can point to instances where the ready availability of public-domain work appears to hinder creative activity rather than promote it. (Notice how many on-line information sources merely repeat what Wikipedia has, rather than write anything original of their own.)
But let's suppose you are right that copyrights and patents impede progress. Some would argue that we would be better off without any kind of IP protection. Others (including the framers of the Constitution) would argue that such protection is necessary.
Once again, it seems to me that the issue is how long copy protection should last.
I’m glad you’re happy with how your publisher treats you.
So am I.