A more concrete example would be if JK Rowling died in 1998 and her IPs were suddenly public domain.

Who is being screwed over, by who?[/quote]
Jk Rowling. Unless you think taking advantage of dead people is ethically sound by virtue of their being dead.

When you buy your wife flowers, do you think she cares more about the flowers or the fact that you bought them for her? It's not about the flowers just like receiving something for the use of your father's IP isn't about the money.

Just like Robert Kearns took a chance at a $10 million settlement for his case against Ford instead of a $30 million settlement in which Ford would admit no wrongdoing. He got money, sure, but he wanted them to admit that what they'd done was wrong, not to give him money and be absolved.
[/quote]Would it be okay then if they acknowledged your father as the original author? And maybe bought you some flowers? [/quote]
It depends on how they did it.

Well technically you can't screw over someone who's not here....

However, with that said, IMO, the family should have some rights or ownership to a direct relative's work if the opportunity or option is there.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1337095691' post='4940434']

A more concrete example would be if JK Rowling died in 1998 and her IPs were suddenly public domain.

Who is being screwed over, by who?[/quote]
Jk Rowling. Unless you think taking advantage of dead people is ethically sound by virtue of their being dead.[/quote]So by using her work when she's dead, they're screwing her over, but if they give money to you, it's okay?

Writing something in a will doesn't make it unethical, and being unethical doesn't make it a legal issue. What if I didn't want anyone using my work *ever* - not just 70 years? Should that also be respected? Am I being screwed over if they do?

The issue isn't taking advantage of dead people, just as people who make films from Shakespeare plays aren't taking advantage of him (at least, not in the derogatory sense).

When you buy your wife flowers, do you think she cares more about the flowers or the fact that you bought them for her? It's not about the flowers just like receiving something for the use of your father's IP isn't about the money.

Just like Robert Kearns took a chance at a $10 million settlement for his case against Ford instead of a $30 million settlement in which Ford would admit no wrongdoing. He got money, sure, but he wanted them to admit that what they'd done was wrong, not to give him money and be absolved.
[/quote]Would it be okay then if they acknowledged your father as the original author? And maybe bought you some flowers? [/quote]
It depends on how they did it.
[/quote]So how should they do it?

However, with that said, IMO, the family should have some rights or ownership to a direct relative's work if the opportunity or option is there.

If it's public domain, they would have the complete rights to it - along with everyone else. The issue is whether people should be given a monopoly of complete control of the work by the state, allowing them to either to charge other people, or prevent others from making derivative works at all.