The "only" is a false dichotomy - you can enjoy creating and wish for your work to benefit something after your death.
That said, the current copyright laws are pretty ridiculous. Creator's life + 10 years would be more than enough, I reckon, instead of life + 50 or whatever it is.
Originally copyrights did not last the creators lifetime, yet people still created things.
Just because Asimov (may have) wished for his children to rake in money off the royalties of his works, doesn't necessarily mean that he (or they) are entitled to such a thing.
Just because Asimov (may have) wished for his children to rake in money off the royalties of his works, doesn't necessarily mean that he (or they) are entitled to such a thing.
One somewhat interesting counterargument: if Asimov had been a grocer, he could have left his children a chain of profitable stores. Why should a writer's legacy to his children be less than a grocer's? If he had created a bank, an advertising agency or a law firm, these too might have outlived him, and no one would question his right to pass his stake down to his family.
I don't necessarily buy that argument, because income from creative works is purely residual in nature, and has no special value in the hands of anyone but the original author (except for whatever a publisher can continue to milk from it.) It's not as if a dead author can experience further incentive to create.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#Personal_life