actuaries and copyright extension

    Should we extend copyright protection for 20 more years? The basis of a "yes" response must be grounded on the notion that the extra twenty years would provide an increased present incentive for creation.

    Any actuary will tell you that given the current length the protection, an extra 20 years will provide no added incentive.

    Let's assume current protection (life of author plus 50) results in an average 80-year income stream derived from exploitation of the copyrighted work. This potential stream of income will assuredly stimulate creativity. Will extending the length of the stream stimulate more creativity? NOPE. Just call anyone who sells annuities and ask them how much it would cost to buy annuity (income stream) which pays, let's say $1000 per month for 80 years. Then ask how much it would cost to add 20 more years. You will be shocked at how close the two prices are (within a couple of dollars). In other words, a 100-year income stream is worth only an insignificant bit more than an 80-year income stream. No author is going to produce a single extra work if we offer him or her an essentially worthless (in terms of present value--and that's all that counts for the purposes of predicting the decision to create a new work) bonus.

    So, what's the 20-year extension all about? Imposing 20 more years of monopoly costs on consumers without any countervailing public benefit. In some circles this is called "SUBSIDY."

    Paul J. Heald
    University of Georgia School of Law
    <heald[_at_]jd.lawsch.uga.edu> Received on Tue Apr 16 1996 - 17:19:37 GMT