So, anyone who wants to put on a play by Shakespere should go and hunt down any and all decendents so they can be paid for their "property"?
You've actually got the entire concept completely wrong and backwards, which isn't entirely surprising concidering the massive propaganda on the part of media companies to convince of exactly that. The natural state of all "works" of this nature is the public domain. We, as a society see a benefit for us to encourage people to produce such works, so we have agreed to grant them a limited time where they will have exclusive control of a work, after which, it is supposed to revert to the public domain.
As others have mentioned on this thread, major companies like Disney have twisted and perverted this agreement to a point far beyond it's intended purpose. The modern american copyright harms the public greatly, especially since there is no clear way to deterimine who actually owns copyright to a specific work. Used to be, that the owner had to register said ownership with the government, which would then grant the creator exclusive rights to the work for 14 years, after which, the creator would have the option to extend it once for another 14 years, to bring the total to 28 years worth of government granted monopoly of a work. If the author did not renew, the work would enter the public domain after 14 years.
Today, with the horrid state of affairs regarding copyright, you can have a 50 year old book, written by someone dead for a decade or more (if that person can even be located), that is completely out of print and unavailable, yet noone can do anything with this work for another 50 years (or more if Disney buys off more congresscritters in a few years to extend it again).
The copyright laws of Canada are slightly better. They specify life of the author +50 years I believe. This is why the Narnia tales are now available for free download on the Project Gutenberg Canada website. Unfortunately, USFedGov is putting a lot of pressure on countries like Austrailia and Canada to change their laws to match our own insane versions.
I do occasional proofreading for the main Project Gutenberg site so I actually follow this stuff a bit. I can understand how a corporation, which is essentially an artificial immortal governmental construct might want to see copyright extend into perpetuity, but for us mere mortals, it's a bad deal all around.
The very minimum change that should be made to copyright law, even beyond reduction of the length, is that we should go back to a system where copyright for a work is registered for 14 year segments. If a work is not worth enough of someone's time to keep track of and to renew the registration of the copyright, it shold enter the public domain.
Not at all. There may be, however, specific arrangements of Shakespeare plays that you would not be permitted to perform in public for pay without first securing permission from the arranger.
The reversion to public domain, I would argue, is arbitrary. I would rather see artists benefit more, and longer, from their efforts. You would like to seize upon them, I reckon, as if to make them your own and benefit from them without effort on your part. Rather like a leech.
This is way off the mark. The law simply prevents people from publishing further in their own name in order to profit from the work. Anyone can read it or quote it. For practical purposes it may be of benefit for some provision to be made for additional copies to be published for the sake of convenience, and even then, the creator should be entitled to some benefit from those additional copies since the public demands it. Pay your freaking $10.00 for a copy.