Making them into incredibly long-lived rent fiefdoms is bad, and the terms should be much shorter. However, the "moral rights" part should simply not exist at all; the only restraint a copyright holder should have is the ability to demand payment. In money. Possibly at a statutory rate, like with existing compulsory licensing in songwriting.
Because I don't accept these rights, I don't think "compensating" someone by putting restraints on others would be at all legitimate.
Framing it as "compensation" helps bring into focus how abhorrent it is, in fact. What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled?
What do you believe determines the legitimacy of any legal construct? Why should it be OK to say people can’t copy information without paying for it, but not OK to say someone can make their work freely available for anyone who wants to benefit with the one condition that anyone republishing it give credit where it’s due and not plagiarise?
What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled?
“Muzzled” seems like a very loaded term. Giving credit where it’s due is something I think many people would consider a basic act of fairness, and to me it doesn’t seem like much to ask in return for benefitting from someone else’s creative work. Likewise if someone is willing to share their work with others and all they’re asking in return is that others share their derived work on the same basis, that also doesn’t seem terribly unfair. The alternative in either case might be that the work is never created or shared at all.