re: #122 freetoken

In the case of the artist around which the court case was centered, the artist is long, long dead.

So here’s the question: should the dead have the same rights as the living?

We’re talking about an asset. The copyright is protecting intellectual property. It seems as if the people who want to profit from the art (song, book, whatever), want a free ride by making the copyright expire. If I want to make money by selling tickets to a concert of Cole Porter songs, why should I get the content for free? If I make money, the holders of the rights should make money.