you guys are so focused on the monetary implications of IP, but have barely dwelled on the philosophical ones.
A work of artisitic value has very diffrent social implications then one of technological value. It also has a difrent kind of personal value.
An artist writes a song. He plays the song, preforms it and records it. People like the song. The song has emotional/asthetic value to both the creator and the public, but is not definate in terms of meaning. The song can be interperated many ways.
Does the artist have a right to decide how the song he wrote (lets say its about a girl he loves dearly) should be played in public venues? Or who makes money of his personal declaration? I say, yes, he should have some personal control and so should his heirs. His words, his tune, thus his say about what is apprpriate and what is not. The fact that he makes money off the song is secondary.
The distributers of art are the ones really making the money, anyway. However this is getting phased out as social media is playing a part an alllwing the artists to bypas the system and release work directly, which makes they're copyrights more valueable to them and may regain them control, which is another story, but I think, is also a valid reason they should have a good portion of time in which to control their product and collect the friuts of their labor.
On the other hand, we have technollgical creations which can greatly impact human life. Guy creates a super reactor that can power the world. He builds it and makes a buttload of money. But lets say, he's a jerk. He controls his invention with an iron fist. He won't sell his design or allow it to be used, even in places where its really needed. He manages to put other power companies out of business and then has a monopoly on power. If you can't pay his fees, you lose power. you can not go to a second option, cause there is no second option. He has a monopoly on a major comodatie.
Should he have control until well after his death over something that can so greatly impact society? If a company found the cure for AIDS tomorrow, would the public at large be happy if those drugs where not avalible in a timely and affordable fasion?
the inventors should be rewarded and get their money, but society can't afford to let them have it indefinatly. Hell, 20 years is enough time for the controling factor of those two scenerios to do a lot of damage.
I'm not saying its perfect. I'm not even saying its right/fair to the inventors. But it is true.
Note: I know that this is vastly simplified. They're are many factor involved in the production of both. There are also hacks/abusers of both patent and copyright (disney is one) and that most inventions are little enough that the creator could not have that kind of impact. Like I said, its just my opinion on why such things are in place and why such things would have to be in place.
Sure, improvements could be made in the laws, but I have no issue with copyright holders getting a longer hold on their product.