system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Copyrigtht lasting longer than the lifetime of the creator stops more creativity than protect it.

Copyright is a brilliant thing, protecting the ideas of an artist, writer or director. With that they are encouraged to produce something and sequels to successful stuff.

But no person on earth can produce new things, after they died. They don't need any encouragement or protection after their death. It benefits only profit driven companies. They will keep the rights and don't promote creativity based on the pool of the artists work.

I think one or two years after the artists death could the copyright be extended, so the legacy can rest. After that it would only be profit not the idea of protecting artists, that put the copyright at death+75 yrs.
gpt
Copyright is a transferrable asset; this is why you can sell, license, or give away all or part of your copyright. Because it's an *asset*, it has value, and our current system of inheritance is generally very averse to removing any value that somebody might get from inheritance.

Copyright existing past the death of the author does not just apply to large companies or to allow the "legacy to rest", but also to the family members of authors, and can protect those family members from having residual income taken away by a company swooping in and making knockoffs or simply republishing the original works.

Now, this isn't to say that 70 years makes sense, or that it's exclusively beneficial to estates or whatever, but just to point out that there are impacts of copyright aside from allowing Disney to keep exclusivity over Mickey Mouse forever or whatever.