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.
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.