>(I don't have any problem at all with an author living off their own work for as long as they live). //
It corrupts the copyright deal to some extent. Copyright in part is to encourage creation of new works in the hope that they will benefit society. If we (the people) allow authors to rest on their laurels we potentially deprive ourselves of much of the benefit that could be elicited from their creativity. We also to some extent lock up important works that would otherwise allow the inspiration of others - creators of derivative works - to be rewarded.
We want to reward creativity, but not so much so that those who happen to have societally enriching creativity don't need to exercise it more than once!
It corrupts the copyright deal to some extent. Copyright in part is to encourage creation of new works in the hope that they will benefit society. If we (the people) allow authors to rest on their laurels we potentially deprive ourselves of much of the benefit that could be elicited from their creativity. We also to some extent lock up important works that would otherwise allow the inspiration of others - creators of derivative works - to be rewarded.
We want to reward creativity, but not so much so that those who happen to have societally enriching creativity don't need to exercise it more than once!