<p><pre><code>    &gt; I&#x27;m not advocating 14 years; I think 28-56 is fair.
</code></pre>
As I said I don&#x27;t agree with the current state of copyright and think
it should probably be much shorter, but it&#x27;s interesting that
discussions on this matter are rarely backed up with data. Why do you
prefer 28-56 over 14, or 28-56 over 18-46?<p>Before you mentioned that &quot;every artist on this list is dead&quot; as if it
were patently absurd for copyright to survive the author. Maybe it is,
but to use my previous example why would a talented author is his 80s
with young children write another novel if that were the case instead
of going into the real estate business?<p><pre><code>    &gt; Yes, a Starship Troopers movie would have been released with
    &gt; shorter copyright terms. It is cheaper to make a movie if you do
    &gt; not have to pay for the IP.
</code></pre>
You have to factor in movie studios being reluctant to base their
works on public domain work because it makes it harder to create a
franchise out of it. With a big hit like Starship Troopers being in
the public domain nothing&#x27;s stopping some other studio from releasing
Starship Troopers 2, or selling action figures with that name etc.<p>It&#x27;s sometimes advantageous that a work you want to use is
copyrighted, because that means you can secure exclusive rights to
publish a derived work based on it.