Re: Constitutional Challenge to (C) Code

Amy Stoller <redherring[_at_]tuna.net> wrote:
>
> Robert E. Smith <cosmith[_at_]ash.palni.edu> wrote:
> >
> > What would be the likelyhood of success for a Constitutional Challenge
> > of the Duration of Copyright under both current and pending US Code?
> > It seems to me that life plus fifty-seventy years does not "promote the
> > progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited time."
> > I do not understand how a lifetime beyond my lifetime is limited and how
> > it guarentees my right to my work when I am dead. Class action, anyone?
>
> If you have produced any intellectual property, your heirs will have
> control over its disposition and will be able to benefit from it for
> seventy years after you die. Lifetime plus seventy years is by
> definition a limited time. The extension from fifty to seventy years
> brings the US in line with the rest of the signatories to Berne and
> gives artists a chance to leave something to their children with a
> reasonable hope that those children may benefit thereby. It is a
> sensible provision, given increased life expectancy.
> ...

I've been following this thread with interest. However, I just "ran the numbers" and looked at the value of an additional 20 years of copyright protection. Here they are:

Assume: A valuable copyright, providing a guaranteed revenue stream of $1 million annually.

Needed: The present value of the revenue stream for 20 additional years of protection.

Case 1: A work whose current copyright term is about to expire. Assume that without extension of the copyright term, the work will become worthless (likely not true for some types of works).

Case 2: A work that will be written today. The author will live 35 more years from today.

Case 3: A work written today. The author lives 35 more years. The term is not extended and remains at life plus 50 years. (For comparison)

Discount    Case 1           Case 2         Case 3           Percent*
--------    -----------      -----------    -------------    -------
 5%         $12.462 million  $197,000       $19.684 million  1.0008%
10%         $ 8.514 million  $  2,581       $ 9.997 million  0.0258%
15%         $ 6.259 million  $     43       $ 6.667 million  0.0006%

*Percent is the value of the additional term (Case 2) divided by the value of the current term (Case 3)

What should be obvious is that the benefits of an increased copyright term largely go to those who have existing copyrights! This is especially true for copyrights about to expire. The amount of additional "incentive" provided to the creators of new works is incredibly small, especially when compared to the value of the existing copyright protection. Also consider that the *vast* majority of copyrights have no monetary value after only a few years.

When you look at the money involved in the extension debate, the real reason for extending the term becomes clearer. Hint: it's not to provide incentives for the creation of new worts.

Lurk mode on...

Peter McCarthy
<peter_mccarthy[_at_]ntsc.navy.mil> Received on Tue Mar 31 1998 - 18:43:54 GMT