Copyright was originally set at lifespan of the creator plus some arbitrary amount of time that has changed over the years.

There's still about a few dozen rules that apply in the US:

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Every country has similarly confused systems.

Copyright in the U.S. was originally set at 14 years, renewable for another 14 years.

Considering how much culture seems to have accelerated (via mass media, long distance communication and so on), it would seem obvious that if 28 years was enough back then, it should be more than enough today.

The only thing the current copyright length is helping with, is establishing and perpetuating monopolist corporations. It's killing innovation and cementing the status quo. Even from a market standpoint this is a bad idea -- not to mention what it looks like from a social standpoint.

It's anti-capitalist and extremely un-American, really. Speaking as a "socialist" European.

Early America, not unlike China today, was extremely hostile to the idea of "intellectual property". Patents and copyrights made it difficult for domestic producers to compete with established companies from Europe.

Brushing all those concerns aside made it a lot easier for companies to produce whatever goods and services were necessary for the local population. Instead of having to pay royalties to a company overseas for having "invented" something, which to people who'd fought for independence from that sort of tyranny, would probably seem absurd.

Thank you for that link. I always wondered what the expiration was for a corporation's work--95 years from publication. Wow, that's an incredibly long time.

I would guess (but am not sure) that 56 years might have been what was in effect when the song was published.