I agree with you, and think copyright should be for a short period disconnected from the lifetime of the author, but _no logical argument_ is taking it way too far. Here's one:
Copyright expiration during an author's lifetime directly impacts their incentive to make derivative works, because everyone else can do it too. In a world where Lustbader is churning out The Bourne Pontification, would Ludlum's own sequel be nearly as commercially successful?
If the author is dead, no derivative works can be made, so we may no longer want this protection.
Does this argument sway me personally? No. Are there workarounds like trademarks? Yes. Does (life + 20) make more sense than max(life,20)? No.
Copyright expiration during an author's lifetime directly impacts their incentive to make derivative works, because everyone else can do it too. In a world where Lustbader is churning out The Bourne Pontification, would Ludlum's own sequel be nearly as commercially successful?
If the author is dead, no derivative works can be made, so we may no longer want this protection.
Does this argument sway me personally? No. Are there workarounds like trademarks? Yes. Does (life + 20) make more sense than max(life,20)? No.
But you're being needlessly black and white here.