They can charge whatever they want. Companies buying legislators to keep renewing copyrights every 26 years is not law. It is lobbying that deprives the marketplace.
Hollywood has been kept solvent selling America 50 year old product that should be in the public domain by now (as was formerly the case under the law).
Hollywood would be more responsive to the market when they try to push Left wing antiwar propaganda as infotainment. But they reap billions off of works produced by dead people (many of whom were employed under “work for hire” contracts and do not receive any further payments).
The author of the article somehow thinks that the work of scientists and inventors should NOT be likewise protected or allowed to be sold for whatever price the market will bear.
That may or may not be true. I don't know enough about the mechanics of Hollywood finances to comment, nor do I really care. But, the central thesis of the original story that this particular LA Time's Blog is responding to, is that all songs, to include contemporary songs, should be downloadable for free. That is a statement that philosophically, I just can't agree with.
I have said before, and will say again, when you download a song - a newly released song - from the internet for free, it is just like walking into Walmart and shoplifting a CD.
The half-life of patents or copyright claims might be a interesting intellectual discussion, but it's not really material to some kids ability or willingness to download the latest Beyonce LP without paying for it.
“The author of the article somehow thinks that the work of scientists and inventors should NOT be likewise protected or allowed to be sold for whatever price the market will bear.”
Right. The distinction drawn by the author makes no sense. Both copyrights and patents are designed to PROTECT intellectual property. The purpose of each is to maximize the benefits of intellectual creativity.
Giving too little protection (short periods during which creators can charge whatever price the market will bear) may discourage creativity (or result in too much of it taking the form of trade secrets rather than being put into the public domain where all can make use of it once the period of protection expires).
Giving too much protection won’t increase the net amount of creativity very much, but will stifle the downstream benefits that come from generic price competition (in the case of drugs) or more widespread distribution (e.g., Google Books makes available for free a large number of works whose copyright protection has expired).
So the length of patent protection and copyrights always is a balancing act. Society loses to the extent that such policy decisions are contaminated by letting corporate interests buy influence to tip the balance in their favor. A world that confers NO period of protection for patents or copyrights surely cannot be optimal. But neither can a policy that extends the period of protection far beyond the death date of the creator. Let’s acknowledge that most creators aren’t motivated to create based on how much their great-grandchildren will benefit from their creativity.