So you're saying artists shouldn't be allowed to sell permanent rights? Or that a past contract isn't valid?
That is exactly what we want.
These contracts have already been made. The original artists already sold permanent rights to their creations, and were compensated for it, and I don't think it's the right of the government to come in and change existing contracts.
You can buy real estate, only to have it be taken away later by eminent domain or the taxes can increase on it dramatically forcing you to sell it at a loss.
If you want, you can try to create a fund where copyright holders that are still reporting profits on an asset could apply to receive some portion of the fund. There is no way it can completely cover their loss, but it is potentially an option.
Businesses also are able to write off losses on future taxes. We'd need some tax code to make sure a bunch of businesses don't write off an infinite amount of money for the next 100 years, but there is likely a pretty straight forward solution here.
I suppose the government could step in and make it illegal for artists, in the future, to sell lasting copyrights. But I don't think it's the job of the government to disallow artists from freely entering into contracts. Artists & creators are already able to sell 28 year rights if they so choose.
It's precisely the job of the government to create laws and change those laws to reflect new realities. We must be able to roll back things if we find they are not working.
I wonder why sort of compensation was offered to slave holders after the government took their "property" away from them by forcing the freeing of enslaved people. (it makes my eyes water to think in these terms)