What if that help and support went on for many years while the author was working on his "masterpiece"?
What if that masterpiece was released just years before his death?
How can people be so nihilists about this?
Furthermore, have you look at the release dates in the article? It was almost 100 years ago. The article give an example of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate which sued Netflix two years ago.
> And what if they didn't?
If they didn't, or didn't get along then it's possible the author could have left the rights of his estate to someone else. If there is no will, things go by default to family.
The intent of copyright was never to be a never-ending "golden goose"! It was to give a very limited sole ability to monetize something in exchange for moving the arts and sciences forward.
Generational wealth was never a consideration. Nor was how helpful other people were to the enterprise.
It is amazing that the perception (and reality thanks to unlimited money from mega-corps) has changed to be something that someone "owns" and is "owed". It isn't and never was. It was only ever meant to be an encourangment for the good of society not for the individual.
Suppose you're a software freelancer, you're 35, you have two young kids, you've spent the last 15 years working very hard writing software, and you're able to support yourself with annual license fees from some businesses.
If you decide to just watch TV for the rest of your life, your hard work will continue to pay off, and your kids will be provided for. But if you get hit by a bus one day and killed, your one valuable asset instantly becomes worthless, and your kids aren't provided for.