Re: actuaries and copyright extension

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

FWIW, I am not in favor of adding more years to the copyright term, except as perhaps it may be dictated by international reality. But the reason for my position is that there is no significant benefit (again, apart from international compliance, politics, etc.) from doing so.

OTOH, I am not sure that there is much detriment in doing so. Paul suggests that that there is no added incentive, and particularly that there is no added value to a work between a 50-yr and a 70-yr term. But doesn't that also mean that there is no detriment? The reason that there is no difference in the value of a work between a 50 yr and a 70 year term is that no one cares about such works. If no one cares about them, then there isn't much detriment. If there's a lot of detriment, then the difference in value must be significant-- and hence it will serve as an incentive. It seems to me, in short, that for the most part "ex ante value to author" and "ex ante value to the public" will rise or fall together, not inversely.

Trotter Hardy
<thardy[_at_]facstaff.wm.edu>

    Trotter Hardy / William & Mary / (804) 221-3826 Received on Wed Apr 17 1996 - 20:41:39 GMT