It's a very simple question, telling that you refuse to answer it:
"but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"
You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't.
Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
That's an argument, to me, against the "necessity" of this regime. It serves to show that this regime is rent seeking, a windfall for existing copyright holders, and an impediment to competition.
"You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't."
You kinda did
>My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
It's a pointless observation. No one said that works would never be created without the extensions.
>Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
"but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"