Re: actuaries and copyright extension

From: Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:33:36 -0600

I would like to take this opportunity to point out the letter to the editor by Prof. Karjala in the latest Newsweek on essentially the same subject (20 year term extension).

---

The preceding was not a legal opinion, and may not be my employer's. Original portions Copyright 1996 Bruce E. Hayden My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution, as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.

---

Bruce E. Hayden                                bhayden[_at_]acm.org               
Austin, Texas                                  bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com

At 01:28 PM 4/17/96 -0700, you 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. If this is
> correct, it shows that the traditional incentives/public benefit
> tradeoff under which copyright legislation should be judged is no
> longer at work, because no further incentive is required for works
> already in existence.
>
> So, what is at work with these extension proposals? The most
> charitable view is that of "natural rights." The problem with that
> is that "natural rights" have no logical stopping point. Moreover,
> a true natural rights believer would protect under copyright not
> only expression but also creative ideas--and should also plump for
> perpetual patents as well. Few, if any, openly argue for such
> extensions of current intellectual property law. "Natural rights"
> is therefore simply a word that sounds good and is useful in
> ratcheting up intellectual property rights. In less charitable
> circles, this is called "GREED."
>
> Dennis S. Karjala
> Professor of Law
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, Arizona 85287
> 602-965-4010
> 602-965-2427 (fax)
> dennis.karjala[_at_]asu.edu
Received on Fri Apr 19 1996 - 01:32:59 GMT