No one in Parliament would know better than Peter Garrett what largesse copyright can confer so it may seem right that he should announce a royalty for artists, amounting to 5 percent of all sales after the original one, which can go on giving to their families for as much as 150 years. But that ignores the truth that copyright law is a scandal, recently exacerbated by the Free Trade Agreement with the US which required the extension of copyright to 70 years after death. Is it scandalous that really valuable copyrights end up in the ownership of corporations (although Agatha Christie's no-doubt worthy great-grandchildren are still reaping the benefits of West End success for her whodunits and members of the Garrick Club enjoy the continuing fruits of A.A. Milne's Christopher Robin books)? No. The scandals are that been peasants politicians have attempted to appear cultured by creating private assets which depend on an act of Parliament for their existence and by giving away much more in value than any public benefit could justify. In doing so, they have betrayed our trust.
According to the text, why is copyright law scandalous?