Is it wrong to pirate an artists work after they have died? I know that pirating is wrong and that pirating a work after an artist has died takes money away from those who publish or perform the artists work. But something inside me sees it as a different things to pirate an artists work after they have died. I mean have you ever heard of a dead person complain from being ripped off? I can understand the case if an artist had specifically stated that any profits post death should go to family or charity, but if the artist is dead then what?
Now in thinking about this I can see two cases but with each I feel differently about them. Take the case of classical music, say a piece by Mozart. Mozart has been dead for hundreds of years and Mozart or his family has likely not seen a cent from the sales of reproductions of his music, yet I would have a hard time trying to justify pirating it because I would be unjustly depriving the performers of due payment.
But what about the case in which there are no performers? What about say an Ebook? Would it be wrong to pirate it? I mean it is very likely that these days printers already have a digital copy. Is ten bucks a fair price for a digital copy of a book when the author would never see a cent of it?
Before I sign off I would just like to reiterate that I am not trying to justify or promote stealing. Really I was just trying to answer the question of who does a piece of artwork belong to? The artist or the distributor. If it belongs to the artist then it seems to me that the cost of posthumous works should be significantly reduced.
But as is likely with other questions, the answer I seek is probably much more complicated than a simple yes or no
