Re: actuaries and copyright extension

On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Karjala, Dennis wrote:
>
> Paul Heald writes (after cogently showing the absence of any
> increased present value to a current author from an additional
> 20 years of copyright):
> >
> > 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."
>
> The 20-year extension is about works as to which incentives play
> no role whatsoever, namely, those about to go into the public domain
> because they have been paying royalties to their copyright owners for
> 75 years. If the proposed extensions were prospective only, I am
> certain that support for them would disappear overnight.
[snip]
>
> Dennis S. Karjala

So let's say I am a major motion picture production company with a movie in my inventory first released in 1928 (just for example). By today's rules, my copyright will expire 75 years later, in 2003. Today is 1996. I have 7-plus years remaining. If we send that example to the actuaries, will the added 20 years now look monetarily significant?

But let's be charitable. Some people in this discussion have used the term "greed." How should Congress react when I come before the hearings to say that money is irrelevant here? The real issue is the ability to control uses of that 1928 film, which has been a high-profile piece of my historic inventory, and free use of it will diminish public perception of my company and its creative work. Or so I would say. Any takers?

Kenneth Crews
Indiana University
Indianapolis
<kcrews[_at_]velcome.iupui.edu> Received on Thu Apr 18 1996 - 20:13:31 GMT