please explain exactly why a creator of some form of work shouldn’t reap the benefits of his efforts later in life?

What is the explanation why they should? Most workers do a day’s work and get paid for that day’s work and receive nothing from that day’s work in the future (except for pensions, which can be considered deferred income).

Just because that particular job was done say 50 years earlier, it remains his work, nobody else did that job!

Well, I never said that anyone else should get the earnings — just that the copyright should lapse earlier than it does at present.

Equally why shouldn’t an artists grandchildren or even great-grandchildren continue to reap the benefits of their ancestors efforts? Why should anyone other than the artists family benefit? Are we to understand it that you disagree with the whole concept of inheritance?

Basically, yes. Of course, anyone is free to pass on their property or earnings to anyone if they so wish. But why grandchildren or great-grandchildren should be rewarded for work they had no part in is unclear to me. Indeed, it goes counter to your argument in the paragraph above: “it remains his work, nobody else did that job!”

The house analogy would work if the house was designed to be copied over and over again, which is impossible because no matter how identical the bricks-and-mortar of house is, the location will always be different. Copyright is literally the “right to copy”. As such, it is not the work itself that is restricted, but the dissemination of it. This restriction essentially creates a monopoly, and monopolies are undesirable for well-known reasons.

Just because that particular job was done say 50 years earlier, it remains his work, nobody else did that job!

Equally why shouldn’t an artists grandchildren or even great-grandchildren continue to reap the benefits of their ancestors efforts? Why should anyone other than the artists family benefit? Are we to understand it that you disagree with the whole concept of inheritance?

I just read a letter about the copyright issue by Mike Batt, as an illustration he posed the question:

“If I build a beautiful house when I’m 20, would it be right that 50 years on, when I turn 70, that I’m evicted and my house is automatically handed to the National Trust for the public to enjoy? Should my house not be mine to leave to my heirs if I wish to do so?” (wording not exact…)

I feel the same about any form of work, why should I or any of my heirs ever cease to benefit from something I worked hard to create?

Ben