Re: The problem I have so far...
"Do you object to me, and people like me, actually making a living from our work?
No, it's more like your great great great grand children still earning a living from your work and the utter destruction of the Public Domain.
Get Copyright back in balance and then we can talk, Mickey (the Mouse)."
You have a point there. The Disney-driven extensions of copyright term are a pork-barrel embarrassment. 50 years after publication or death of author are sufficient.
As far as legacy goes, we're allowed to leave physical property to our descendants and their ownership of it never expires. Most people seem not to object to that, even though it means the public will never get its hands on those assets.
Yes, the Public Domain is important but I notice that the world is full of in-copyright images, films, music and text which nonetheless I am able to see, hear and read, often free of charge or at very low cost, and from which I can learn and culturally enrich myself. I don't live in a cultural desert as a result of copyright 'locking away' works, even 'orphan works', as Cory Doctorow, Mike Masnick and other Google shills would have us believe.
If any of my work has lasting economic value at my death I'm damned sure I want my child to benefit, in the same way any other parent does with their estate. Then, I'm content for it to fall into the Public Domain after 50 years. The exceptions to this stance are well up the Pareto curve, and as we all know, hard cases make bad law, eh Mickey?