I don’t think it’s inherently bad, just that it has a tendency to be owned by the rich, who are inherently bad.

I think that’s slightly different, as artists that were good people typically means there message is good.

Esentially:

The bad/evil artists are clearly going to be the worst of these options. There messaging will typically match (ex: Ed Sheeran’s neutrality on genocide).

But for artists who are good people we should generally expect the opposite. The ownership may be in the hands of bad people because they’re dead, but the message will likely be better than the alternative, which is a point of distinction.

Also I think it’s worth noting that artists that are good people would be more likely to have their estate go to a good cause.

why does it matter if someone else (presumably not bad) would profit off of it?

I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. The people with the kind of money able to buy the rights to art tend to be the rich.

And you don’t get rich by being good.