[Edit] Seriously, I used to buy 2nd-hand short story books to get to stories like this (which I've read), but if it has a wider readership this way, but people buy novels, maybe that's copyright's intent?
Not sure what you're trying to say at the end, but copyright's intent was to inspire Asimov to write stories in the first place. Copyright is supposed to give artists/creators the peace of mind to know that once they create someone won't just copy their work and turn a profit on their hard work. (i.e. If Asimov wrote this story, just to have someone copy the book and start selling it on street corners, making money on practically zero effort of their own)
I don't see how protecting Asmiov's work after his death is in any way supposed to inspire him to create more works (he's already dead). And I highly doubt that Asimov cared whether or not his works would be under copyright once he was dead and buried. The only real reason for works to be protected past death is to the benefit of corporations not to the benefit of the general public or the artists/creators themselves.
The "only" is a false dichotomy - you can enjoy creating and wish for your work to benefit something after your death.
That said, the current copyright laws are pretty ridiculous. Creator's life + 10 years would be more than enough, I reckon, instead of life + 50 or whatever it is.
Originally copyrights did not last the creators lifetime, yet people still created things.
Just because Asimov (may have) wished for his children to rake in money off the royalties of his works, doesn't necessarily mean that he (or they) are entitled to such a thing.
Just because Asimov (may have) wished for his children to rake in money off the royalties of his works, doesn't necessarily mean that he (or they) are entitled to such a thing.
One somewhat interesting counterargument: if Asimov had been a grocer, he could have left his children a chain of profitable stores. Why should a writer's legacy to his children be less than a grocer's? If he had created a bank, an advertising agency or a law firm, these too might have outlived him, and no one would question his right to pass his stake down to his family.
I don't necessarily buy that argument, because income from creative works is purely residual in nature, and has no special value in the hands of anyone but the original author (except for whatever a publisher can continue to milk from it.) It's not as if a dead author can experience further incentive to create.
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.
[Edit] Seriously, I used to buy 2nd-hand short story books to get to stories like this (which I've read), but if it has a wider readership this way, but people buy novels, maybe that's copyright's intent?