[tonysdg]

IIRC, the idea is to help the (dependents of the) Kurt Cobains of the world: artists who die young and still have loved ones who can now depend on the revenue from the copyrighted works for at least 20 years. But IANAL, so I could be way off.

[DEADBEEFC0FFEE]

Why should children of artists get more help than say, builders, or doctors, or anyone?

[sparky_z]

Builders and doctors have regular salaries (or at least are paid in full upon completion of the work they do). The value of a creative work is in the income stream it creates over time. If you need the money now, you can recoup that by selling the rights. But it's hard to sell rights to an income stream that could disappear tomorrow if you were hit by a bus.

[andrepd]

You're not wrong, but the same can be said of all inherited wealth.

[mgolawala]

To cover that scenario you could grant copyright to the creator/artist for "life or 20 years whichever is greater".

[TeMPOraL]

Why not simply "20 years"?

[cwkoss]

I don't think Courtney Love is the best strongman for this argument.