28 years is long enough for a child to be raised on newly published works, then grow up to make their own stories. The child who play-pretends as Sherlock Holmes or as The Dread Pirate Robert should be able to grow up and write those stories.
Meanwhile, the stories of authors who published to indifference only to see their work become popular many years later are too numerous to mention. Many artists sacrifice their economic wellbeing on the altar of their artistic endeavor, and in matters of individual copyright ownership it's not unreasonable to take that into account.
It's a warm and fuzzy statement you make, but what's the argument about why this is good, for child or society?
The purpose of copyright is explicitly stated to be "to promote the sciences and useful arts". Copyright's temporary monopoly over works is designed to compensate the author for having written them. Without public domain, there is no advancement, as future authors cannot build upon earlier works.
If I ever reference the sword Excalibur, or the outlaw Robin Hood, or the raising of Lazarus, I am using cultural references. Under the reign of permanent copyright, these references, which can enrich a work considerably, would not be allowed. In 100 years, authors will not be allowed to make reference to Harry Potter, or Frodo, or Luke Skywalker, a great cultural loss.
Incidentally JRR Tolkien died in 1973 so you'll be able to recycle characters from Lord of the Rings to your heart's content in 29 years as long as the law doesn't change; you just won't be able to use the footage from the movies or quote the script insofar as it differs from the novel. A literary parody has been around for a few decades already, I think it's called Bored of the Rings.
Uhh, literature does not work like technology. Authors can and do create entire universes out of whole cloth. Of course, they will be influenced by countless other works, but copyright has no bearing their unless it's a barefaced rip-off.
In fact, I would guess that most creators want to create their own work rather than build on top of others'. Firstly, because of ego, because the work would be all their own. Secondly, this allows the maximum amount of creative ability without being shackled by a backstory that they had no influence on.
The natural state of affairs would be that anyone is free to see or listen to (etc) some content, and then make marks on paper, or patterns of bits, or sound waves that are more or less faithful copies of that.
Copyright is unnatural. It's not worth hashing out the arguments for or against it, or for or against any particular length, here. But the onus is clearly on supporters of long copyright terms to show how the benefits offset the downsides of restricting everyone else's freedoms in this way.
Stories are sometimes different, but I imagine that forcing the public at large to always start from scratch (or at least from a largely static landscape of compositions) precludes a lot of good works that we can't predict in advance. e.g. sampling in electronic music either uses really old music or doesn't bother with the law until an act gets big.
At the same time, an author wants to benefit from and maintain creative control over how their work is used. I'm kind of interested in the following question: If copyright expires after the author's death, why do we respect their wishes in life but not in death? Just because they won't be offended when they're dead? Or is it because we regard their ideas as property and dead people can't own things? In which case, why can't it be passed down through the family in perpetuity and thus be restricted as long as the owners wish for all time?
I feel like the right balance is some reasonable fixed term rather than the life of the author since both of those scenarios feel wrong to me.
Yes, and that is what patent terms aim to do. The monopoly is there to allow inventors to profit and so to continue to develop and invent. The monopoly is initially exchanged for the explicit disclosure of the invention. Without this deal the public domain would remain sparse as in order to profit (or really 'in order to break even' in many fields of endeavour) inventors would otherwise tend to choose to keep their inventions secret and deprive the public domain of the knowledge of how the invention is worked.
Now, of course the development cycle of almost all patentable things has shortened with increased technology and industrialisation. So patent terms in many areas are probably a bit too long as well. But patents protection can realistically be an order of magnitude shorter term than some current copyrights will prove to be, and certainly with no less work put in to the creation.