Now, I realise you're trolling here but copyright isn't an inherent human right, and was originally granted by the ruling body of the day in order to encourage creators to continue to create by protecting their work for a limited time. After a while that protection fell away and their creations joined the public domain where it could be copied, or adapted to better enrich the presiding culture in general.
What you've done is create a strawman argument which isn't comparable. The correct analogy would be, what if house designs were tossed into the public domain after 50 years? To which I would reply, "Seems like a sound idea. Let's do that for books and films as well. Hey, why 50 years? Why not 25 years or less?"