Re: actuaries and copyright extension

Trotter Hardy writes regarding copyright term:
>
> 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.
>

This would be true if the term extension applied only prospectively, to new works created after the effective date of the Act. If that were true, it would be at least 50 years before it had any effect.

But it applies to works whose copyright is about to expire now. So there is an immediate impact on the public domain, but little impact on incentives. [There is a benefit, of course, to people who happen to own copyrights in works created 75 or so years ago].

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu Received on Fri Apr 19 1996 - 19:57:59 GMT