Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On 10/29/98, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Derric Oliver <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What did these heirs do to deserve compensation?
> >
> > They [heirs] did the exact same thing as recipients of any other assets
> > that come their way by virtue of a will.
>
> I hope others here will have noticed the circularity in the reasoning
> that supports this position. The heirs have something only by virtue of
> the fact that the law permits them to have it. They have no "justice"
> or "fairness" interest in it at all. The law allows some things to be
> inherited, and not other things (tort claims of the decedent, for
> example, which is why there are wrongful death laws). This leaves the
> policy question of whether heirs *should* inherit intellectual
> "property" completely open.

I apologize for the length of the post, this is actually a reply to two posts in this thread...

As Bob Cumbow pointed out, it is his wish, as a parent, to give his daughters a good start financially. Bob works hard for his money. It is fair and just to say that he gets to decide where it goes. Otherwise, he would only have an incentive to work for rewards which he could receive in this lifetime.

The public policy decisions in not letting certain claims be inheritable are based on other factors, i.e.: problems of proof, the fact that a Plaintiff in a tort suit is not being compensated for hard work but for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc. The norm is to allow people to provide for their loved ones when they are gone.

If Patents or Copyrights disappeared at the moment of death, then what incentive would the elderly and sick have to produce? Furthermore, why would anyone pay for such property if they consulted the appropriate actuarial tables & found that the author/inventor didn't have a long life expectancy. In fact, wouldn't the market then only pay a fraction of the intellectual property's worth, thereby punishing someone because they are old or sick? Is this fair or just?

Finally, I would like to disagree with Jayne Sebby's point that property should be divided into two categories: that which needs work to continue to produce, and that which has value without effort. Many shareholders make no effort to improve the business which they own. Many heirs who have inherited copyrighted works need to market the works in order to receive compensation. This distinction is merely indicative of what type of business decisions the decedent made in his life.

Morgan Malino
KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE,
D'ARMOND, MCCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P.
P.O. Box 3513
Baton Rouge, LA 70821

The contents of this message is not intended to be legal advice. The views expressed herein are not necessary those of my employer, etc., etc. Received on Fri Oct 30 1998 - 17:30:39 GMT