Because when companies sell books to poor people in developing countries at steep discounts, rich people in the US buy them at the discount rate and "import" them back into the US.
Book authors are generally thinking more about which second job they're going to get to pay their rent, because apart from some notable outliers, it's extraordinarily difficult to make a living as an author. But, by all means, let's make their work product even less marketable!
So, you're saving that if copyright length was reduced to thirty years, that would have an effect on the ability of an author to make a living, and that this marginal reduction in a book's marketability outweighs giving the poor free access to them.
I'm arguing that it wouldn't affect authors, because except for the extremely small number of books that become classics, essentially all profit comes soon after release. And if you're book became a classic, you're probably no longer poor, even if copyright term is only 30 years.
And, again, the poor in developing countries shouldn't have to pay outrageous prices for ancient eBooks/books that are in the classical canon.
TLDR: If you believe that additional compensation for authors on books that are still selling after 30 years outweighs letting them enter the public domain and allowing the poor free access, I'm really interested to hear the reasoning.
I think you missed the point. @jivatmanx wasn't complaning about having to pay $10, he was complaining about having to pay it for a 90-year-old item. The author is probably dead by now, and even his children might be dead, so whether or not the author could make a living is irrelevant now.
Book authors are generally thinking more about which second job they're going to get to pay their rent, because apart from some notable outliers, it's extraordinarily difficult to make a living as an author. But, by all means, let's make their work product even less marketable!