Your pension wasn't created the day before you died and then pays out for 10 years afterwards. It was created over 20-30 years with the money you already earned (you get paid a bit less so the pension is funded).

And just like you, the author's works can provide for his family after death, assuming he's been investing his money into retirement/life insurance. But a one hit wonder who kicks the bucket the next day? That 'pension' is going to be might small...

Then the 'author' should have bought life insurance or he was a lousy author and we aren't in the business of rewarding that. Copyright isn't about paying for relatives, it's about incentivizing the creator to create more works by giving a reasonable return. If you're dead you can't produce any more so there's no incentive that can work.

fringe cases like this are the bastion of trolls.

You know what industry thrives on rampant copying and 'intellectual' 'theft'? Fashion. No copyrights, no patents and it's a veritable bonanza of creativity. And of course knock offs that look almost as good as the originals. Knock offs which actually drive more purchases of the originals. People can purchase a knock off today and later when they have the ability, they still want the brand name.

So, no, you don't need copyright to have robust creativity and rewards for that creativity.

sometimes the person who invents something and patents it, simply isn't able to properly take it to the next level. It would seem unfair to prevent them from selling their patent to a company and thus receiving compensation for their 'invention', no?

Obviously, some companies will be your patent trolls, but others do take their purchased patents and market them. There isn't any 'best' solution for this because stopping one too much causes the other to be affected too.

you've already missed the point. If copyright/patents are meant to encourage people to create, granting them rights after they are dead is utterly useless.

40 years is also way way way to long. 10 would be a lot more reasonable. If you can't monetize your work in that amount, maybe you aren't that good at what you're doing. Besides, for music, people are still going to see the original artist play their music, not a cover band given the choice.

small comfort, but people whose biometrics are hacked would be the perfect cyber criminals no? I mean, you can't tie those bio-metrics to just 'them' anymore right?

excuse me, I need to go take a red pill...

I'm not missing the forest through the trees. He is in Russia specifically because the US revoked his passport. The OP called that blatantly false and you agree that it's blatantly true.

Could Russia do something to 'unstick' the situation? Sure, but that's entirely a different. The current situation was created because of the US; that Russia could do something to resolve it isn't Snowden's fault nor does it change the fact that the US started this.

The OP blatantly said that it was false that Snowden was in Russia because of the US. Yet you agree with me that, yes the reason Snowden got stuck in Russia was the US's fault.

COULD Russia issue him a passport? I find that perhaps possible but very unlikely, but that's sort of irrelevant to how and why he got stuck there - which you agree was the US's doing.

seriously do read up on how things happened. Snowden got stuck in the Moscow airport expressly because his passport was no longer valid. Countries don't just let people in on flights without one of those. He had already booked flights to Central America but couldn't board the flights without a valid passport.

And most countries check you BEFORE you board so that you aren't able to actually get there without it.

So yes, the State Dept revoking Snowden's passport is exactly why he was living in the Moscow airport for a short time until Russia decided to grant him asylum; I'd guess for no small reason that Russia is downright reveling in sticking it to the US by doing so.

But if you think countries go around issuing their national passports to just anybody...I'm not sure we can have rational discussion.

He's only in Russia BECAUSE of the US. He didn't choose to stay there. Restore his passport and he'll quite happily leave Russia.

And he's not 'lending aid' to any foreign governments. Nobody has any proof of that. Which also supports his case that he didn't do this for 'espionage' or to 'harm' the US. The US Government is already harming itself, he just told us about it.

actually, no he wouldn't get a fair trial. He's not allowed to present much of what would be his case. Motive is a perfectly reasonable thing to enter into the record. Except he won't be allowed to do so. Even Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers thinks so.

yeah...and Snowden couldn't get a fair trial here...so he'd do that why?

a friend of mine commented "just once I wish Obama would show up at a press conference in overalls with 2 pitbulls on chains and rant like the angry black man the right accuses him of being"

well you win the Internet Pedantic award today.

So Internet costs $60
TV costs $60

But if I add a phone line I get all 3 for $90. (Or more accurately they give hefty discounts on the Internet and TV with the bundle) So yes I'm getting services for 'free' if you want to be anal about it.

That's 'forcing' you to get the bundle to get the best deal. Yes you have a 'choice' to pay more, but if you want the cheapest deal from a particular provider you are 'forced' to choose from what they offer.

In my case, I'm lucky enough to have both FIOS and Comcast servicing my street so I do have a 'choice' in ISP. Most people, however, don't have that choice and thus are 'forced' to deal with the only 'choice' that they have.

Of course you are also making a huge assumption. That Comcast/FIOS/ISPs are charging the minimum they can for Internet access. In which case the 'bundle' price would indeed be a loss for them. Except that since they are local monopolies in most places, the prices charged for internet and TV are far far far higher than what it actually costs them to provide it.

not forced, but if you want the cheapest price you are forced into the bundle.

I have the same issue with Verizon. Have no serious need for a phone line but it's easily $30-40 cheaper with the bundle than without.