The problem with Ivan's post, and with copyright term
extension generally, is that both are based on an
incomplete analysis of the benefits and detriments of
granting exclusive rights in a piece of expression.
It is true that granting some period of exclusive rights will, by enabling in some cases the recovery of monopoly rents by the author, incentivize the creation of new works. But it is also true that the power of a period of exclusive rights to further incentivize expression runs out at some point.
In Eldred, a group of economists submitted a brief arguing that, on average, the post-CTEA copyright period gave authors approx. 99.7% of the benefit they would realize from a perpetual copyright term. The pre-CTEA period gave authors approx. 99.5%.
The burden of anyone who wishes to argue that the CTEA is wise policy is to explain why, in exchange for .2% of increased author incentive, we should wish to permit an additional two decades in which (1) the dissemination of certain valuable expression will be reduced because of supra-competitive pricing, and (2) authors who would otherwise be able to create derivative works based on public domain materials will be prevented from doing so unless able to pay royalties. Given the importance of derivative works in our culture -- Romeo and Juliet is a good example (based on Arthur Brooke's poem "The Tragicall History of Romeus and Juliet"). (And West Side Story was, of course, a "second order" derivative work based on R&J) -- I think this second element is of real concern.
In any event, whether or not the CTEA is bad policy, I
believe that the Supreme Court's opinion in Eldred is
bad legal reasoning and a worrying example of
conservative judicial activism. See
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030120_sprigman.html
Best regards.
> --- Keith Tabor <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But why wasn't 50 years after death enough time?
> >
> > Would you really want a perpetual copyright?
> >
> > Just to say that I agree with most of your post,
> > having just scanned it, except for the first
> > sentence.
> >
> > Keith
> > --- Ivan Hoffman <ivan[_at_]ivanhoffman.com> wrote:
> > > I completely support the decision. Intellectual
> > > property is today's means
> > > of production and the source of wealth in the
> > world
> > > today. You just have
> > > to look at the top 10 richest people in the
> world
> > to
> > > see that. A hundred
> > > years ago, the source of wealth might have been
> > > steel mills etc. Later, the
> > > source of wealth might have been real estate and
> > the
> > > like. Today, the
> > > source of wealth is IP. Ownership of IP rights
> is
> > > essential if your goal
> > > is to be successful and wealthy. That is the
> > reason
> > > I constantly stress
> > > the need to "own everything."
> > >
> > > Thus, any laws that protect the creative
> process,
> > > even well into the
> > > future, I support. In today's world, and
> > presumably
> > > in tomorrow's, media
> > > has many diverse formats. A quick scan of cable
> > > television, as but one
> > > example, reveals the long term potential of IP
> > > rights of old television
> > > shows, music etc. Rights of creators should be
> > > viewed with that diversity
> > > in mind. What level of protection might have
> > > existed 50 or so years ago
> > > seems to me to be irrelevant. As both a creator
> > > myself and an attorney who
> > > has represented creatives throughout all of my
> > over
> > > 29 years of practicing
> > > law, I believe that if you do not at least wake
> up
> > > every day believing that
> > > what you are going to create is going to have
> that
> > > kind of potential, it
> > > makes it hard to justify the act of creating the
> > > same. Clearly not
> > > everything is going to have those "legs" but if
> > any
> > > of us knew what was or
> > > was not going to last, we'd be in another line
> of
> > > work. Thus, those
> > > creating creativity should make the assumption
> > that
> > > what they are creating
> > > is going to be valuable for a long time and thus
> > the
> > > longevity of
> > > protection should be at least part of the
> > motivation
> > > for such creation.
> > >
> > > Those interested can read "What Business Are You
> > > In?,"
> > > (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/business.html)
> > "Private
> > > Laws"
> > > (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/private.html) and
> "The
> > > Need for Vision"
> > > (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/vision.html) on my
> > site.
> > >
> > >
> > > IVAN HOFFMAN, B.A., J.D.
> > > Attorney at Law
> > > Lawyering With Integrity
> > > Internet Law, Publishing Law, Copyrights,
> > > Trademarks, Fine Art Law,
> > > Corporate Training and Online Education Law, Web
> > > Design Law, Music Law. *A
> > > 7 Times Award Winning Site.*
> > > http://www.ivanhoffman.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:47 GMT