Re: actuaries and copyright extension

John Noble noted that:
>
> At 1:16 PM 4/16/96 +0000, Paul Heald wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Why is that true? One might as well say that increasing the minimum
> wage must be grounded in the notion that the increase will encourage
> more people to get jobs.

    It is true because that's the only rationale under which Congress is supposed to enact copyright laws. See U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8.

> > 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.
>
> Why do I suspect that Prof. Heald would recoil at the application of
> Chicago School economic theory to, for example, privacy rights.

    Although I'm not sure what an economic analysis of privacy rights would look like, I am sure that the Supreme Court does not demand that we perform it, whereas the Court has told us over and over again that economic considerations should drive I.P. laws.  

> > 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."
>
> I thought that a subsidy was the dedication of a public asset for
> private benefit, while the dedication of a private asset to public
> use was, in other circles, called something else.

    I thought that's what I said. Works subject to copyright are public goods. A 20-year extension dedicates these works for an extended private benefit. Sounds like a subsidy to me. Of course, not all subsidies are problematic.

    Paul J. Heald
    <HEALD[_at_]JD.LAWSCH.UGA.EDU> Received on Thu Apr 18 1996 - 14:22:43 GMT