That is the argument of a communist (Your work, comrade, belongs to the collective)
No doubt you were able to create those works using technology for which patents have expired. You were not forced to pay a royalty for the electric light, the keyboard, and the telephone. Your work will be displayed using motion picture or printing press technology that although created by an individual are now available for your free use. You were able to create your work only by mining the "collective" knowledge.
[Payments you make are for the physical manifestation – e.g., a particular keyboard, the specific celluloid to strike your print, the paper and printing costs for your particular text. You are not paying to use the design/ideas.]
It is that "collective" knowledge that allows us create new advances. Technological advancement would grind to a halt if every discovery were owned by an individual or cooperation. Inventors would need to run every single experiment or trial through a legal check to insure they were not infringing on another's "intellectual property." It is most likely that every trial would use the work of another for which they would need permission. It is not just a case of cost, such permission could be denied thus stopping future inventive work.
The same problems would apply to creative work. Many modern works have their roots is the classic myths. Should Disney continue to pay royalties to the original writer of the story? Should Shakespeare's descendents continue to receive royalties for (or indeed be able to prohibit the performing of) the Bards's plays?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The important words are "limited time" and "exclusive Right." Copyright is a temporary monopoly privilege. All our growth depends on shared knowledge. It requires that we be able to mine a common resource without fear of punishment or need for permission.
Intellectual "property" cannot be degraded by over use. There is no tragedy of the commons. Physical property needs tending by the owner to flourish and remain productive. Physical property will be degraded by over use, and does best with a single caretaker.
I think the "limited time" (and I do mean limited as compared to the "infinity minus 1" proposed by some) strikes a good balance between the rights of creators and the need to share knowledge. Communism fails because it under protects physical property leading to the tragedy of the commons. Current capitalism may fail because it walls off to much knowledge, creating a tragedy of the uncommons (I can't use your knowledge and you can't use mine, so we both lose).
I personally think that "the author's lifetime OR seventy-five years, whichever is longer" is eminently fair. The actual creator gets the fruit of his labor for as long as he lives, or, if he dies prematurely (Buddy Holly, "The Big Bopper", and many others), he leaves a reasonable legacy to a young wife and children.
Well I do pay for electricity and film and a computer etc.
So yes, I do think that Shakespeare’s heirs (if there were any) should still be getting royalties every time his plays are used.
The important words are "limited time" and "exclusive Right." Copyright is a temporary monopoly privilege. All our growth depends on shared knowledge. It requires that we be able to mine a common resource without fear of punishment or need for permission.
This Right is the only one actually mentioned in the Constitution. Unfortunately, it has been undermined and negated by the USSC and Congress by allowing the illegal and unconstitutional Opinion that was never adjudicated or determined from the actual trial.
The Founders and Writers of our Constitution were well aware of the close entanglements of the British Military and Corporations (East India Company), where they would both invoke the privileges of the other to effect the taxing policies demanded by the Crown. Corporations (and all other governmentally created entities) are assigned limited Privileges and Powers that can be changed at will; by force if necessary by the government, and by bribery and corruption by corporations.
By allowing this to stand, our FedGov has allowed Corporations to usurp the copyright and patent laws to their own ends, when in fact they have no real right to hold those copyrights or patents - they are individual rights that belong to an individual, not an unaccountable group of privilege.