We simply normalized users not owning content because of him.
A 25 year window should be more than appropriate for copyright protection.
The whole point of copyright is to grant an initial monopoly to a creator so they can benefit from their work, promoting the viability of further creative works. It's supposed to be a positive for the ecosystem as well as just the individual creator but I'd argue absurdly lengthy copyright terms, the fact IP trolls are a viable business model, and the fact large corporations end up dominating the creative space are all ways copyright as it stands negatively effects the overall creative ecosystem. 30 years or about that would permit the creator to benefit exclusively from the original release and a nostalgia cycle, but then it'd be fair game for everyone else to build on which is how culture has always worked. I think that arrangement would be far healthier and promote more creativity.
This isn't true, but it won't stop people claiming otherwise on HN.
(The main reason the US extended copyright protection is because it had committed to not be out of line with the EU terms in international treaties, and the EU reached their number by harmonising to the longest amongst the member states which was Germany, and the main reason German copyright is so long is due to their domestic publishing and newspaper industries).
This is surprising to me.
Not domestic publishing (I understand how that could have happened) but why would newspapers even care about protecting what they wrote about 30 years ago — how are they expecting to monetise today on how they reported in 1994 on such things such as the United Nations accepting Palau as a new member, or the Swiss Federal Assembly's approval of the Marrakesh agreement, or whoever won whichever sports events?
Today's headlines are tomorrow's fish and chips wrappers, as the British say.
Germany also just has a tradition of very strong authors rights.