[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Mind you, there is an important distinction. Non-intellectual property never goes into the public domain.

That's the relevant point, isn't it? Why should only creators of intellectual property get to contribute to the public domain? Why shouldn't their heirs enjoy the same rights as the heirs of others?

If public good is the issue, there's an argument for reversing matters. The more physical things my family owns, the less there are for others to enjoy; matter is finite (land, in particular). Allowing my family perpetual ownership of my writing doesn't limit what anyone else can own.

Originally Posted by W.F. Lantry

What was the copyright term in Shakespeare's day? Or Dante's? Were long copyright's necessary to Boccaccio or Du Fu? What's in our real interest here?

Excellent question. Difficult to answer in terms on non-intellectual property, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked. Would creators of non-intellectual property stop creating if their heirs were limited to the same inheritance rights granted heirs of artists?