>or does it simply enrich heirs? This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in fa

>or does it simply enrich heirs? This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in favor of copyright: When, in 1749, Thomas Newton's (1704-1782) edition of Paradise Lost was published, it carried details about the impoverished circumstances in which Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, lived.[33] The account gave rise to a performance of Milton's Comus at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from which Elizabeth received £130, the profits of the evening. When aligned with the fact that Milton himself received only £20 from Simmons, the tale became a staple in subsequent accounts of neglected genius and avaricious publishers. Deazley, R. (2008) ‘Commentary on Milton's Contract 1667', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org