Re: actuaries and copyright extension

>> The point is that if Walt Disney had been told in 1922 that his
>> monopoly on his creation would expire in 2017 instead of 1997, and
>> then done the math, he would not have discovered an appreciablly
>> increased economic motivation to create his little rodent friend.
>>
>> Paul J. Heald
>> University of Georgia School of Law
>
> Very few creative people do things just for the financial reward or
> create faster/more things in order to make more money, immediately or
> down the road. Copyright extention therefore means little to the
> artist. Also most creators (except possibly authors and muscians)
> sell their creations, including copyright, to others or create under
> a "work for hire" scenario, so any copyright term is irrelevant.
>
> Jayne Sebby
> jsebby[_at_]unlinfo.unl.edu
> Nebraska ETV

But even if Megapublishers, Inc., had been told the author's copyright on a novel would be life plus 70 instead of life plus 50, the difference in present value is so small, it would not even affect the current commercial decision to publish either. There's some justification for copyright during the author's life: it will feed him; there may even be justification for life plus 20 or 30: it will feed her widower; about as a commercial incentive, anything longer than about 50 years is meaningless.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Buford C. Terrell                       1303 San Jacinto Street
Professor of Law                              Houston, TX 77002
South Texas College of Law                voice   (713)646-1857
terrell[_at_]stcl.edu                            fax   (713)646-1766

                    A TRIBUTE TO THE CDA
            
       [Suspended so long as the injunction continues]