Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 8/26/98, Mike Bradley <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com> wrote:
>
> No, that's not what I meant to say. I only meant that the
> *effectiveness* of short terms in "spurring creativity" can only be
> determined by IP creators, who will or won't be more creative as the
> term changes. Similarly, the *effectiveness* of agricultural subsidies
> in controlling the kinds and amounts of crops can only be determined by
> what the farmers plant.
>
> My argument is that very few of those who live by selling rights to
> their IP support shorter terms (big surprise). Arguing, as so many have
> in this thread, the shorter terms will increase creativity seems, um,
> dumb. It's demonstrably contrary to simple fact.

Ah, but in focusing only on the interests of IP creators, you seem to be saying that the effectiveness of the term in spurring creativity is the only relevant consideration. Consumers of creative works have an interest both in spurring creativity and in obtaining widespread access to works that have been created. (Hence my suggestion that the views of IP creators on this matter should not be conclusive).

Moreover, as Dan points out, even within the group of IP creators, there may be differing views. Authors who have already created their works will want more protection, whereas potential creators will want both protection for their own works and greater freedom to build off prior work. At some point, a long copyright term may work against the interests of both consumers and future authors. I don't know precisely what that point is, but my original point was that the question should not be left to solely to existing copyright owners.

--
Joe Liu, Teaching Fellow 
Harvard Law School Langdell 175B
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 496-3141; liu3[_at_]law.harvard.edu
http://www.buyerszone.com/personal/jpl/index.html