There are reasons to oppose copyright but I don't think this is one of them.
Consider that "Last Lecture" professor, Randy Pausch. He spent some of his last days working on a book. Should the surviving family be denied proceeds? Should his author's advance have been much smaller?
That is; if you believe money is an important incentive for creators, you can't overly penalize people who expect to die before all the returns are in.
You're still free to believe that all copyright is bad, or given too long a term, of course.
That's an edge-case. On the flip-side, if I create something on the day that I'm born, how long until it's out of copyright? Is that figure even a morally right length of time to keep something copyrighted?
Let's not even delve into the 'reverse-copyright extensions' that happen when they apply copyright extensions to works in the past that have already fallen into the public domain... How is pulling something that was created 50+ years ago (with the author dead and gone) back into copyright supposed to 'inspire the arts' in any way, shape or form.
Consider that "Last Lecture" professor, Randy Pausch. He spent some of his last days working on a book. Should the surviving family be denied proceeds? Should his author's advance have been much smaller?
That is; if you believe money is an important incentive for creators, you can't overly penalize people who expect to die before all the returns are in.
You're still free to believe that all copyright is bad, or given too long a term, of course.