Andrew Cassel | Do we really need to have copyright?
As the high court reviews an extention in the number of years of ownership, consider social and economic costs.
By Andrew Cassel
Inquirer Columnist

One of the hottest debates in economics is scheduled to erupt today on the floor of the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could ripple from Hollywood to the Internet to your local public library.

The subject is copyright; specifically, the court is reviewing a decision by Congress to extend the number of years that anyone can claim to own a work of art or literature.

The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, named for the late singer-turned-lawmaker, gave copyright holders an extra 20 years to profit from their exclusive rights.

That included, notably, the Walt Disney Co., whose copyright on the original Mickey Mouse cartoon had been scheduled to expire in 2004. But it also locked up countless other songs, films, books and pictures created from the mid-20th century on.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't the heirs of Cole Porter or John Lennon be able to collect royalties for an additional 20 years?

Start by turning the question around: Why are there copyrights in the first place? Why are certain individuals or companies allowed to use the power of the state against others who want to copy or use elements of their invention?

Keep in mind that lots of creative activity goes on all the time that isn't copyrighted. Our culture is full of innovations that were in the public domain from the day they were introduced:

Loose-fit khakis. Adjustable-rate mortgages. Thai-French fusion cuisine. Punctuation-mark "emoticons" in e-mail. Thousands of different fabric and apparel designs. Coconut-mocha lattes.

The point is that creativity goes on all the time. Yet we single out some kinds of creative endeavor for special government protection in the form of copyright.

This wasn't a historical accident. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Notice the point was not to promote large incomes for authors and inventors, much less for media conglomerates or patent attorneys. The government only got involved because of the general benefits that flow from innovation and creativity.

Economists generally take the same attitude. A patent or copyright is a form of monopoly. Monopolies distort markets and as a rule harm consumers. But we can tolerate monopolies for limited times if they create benefits we wouldn't enjoy otherwise.

Yet several questions have grown more acute in recent years. One - how long that "limited" time should be - has brought the issue to the Supreme Court.

Congress originally said copyrights should expire after 28 years. The 1998 act lets them run up to 95 years - the 11th time Congress has lengthened the term.

Plus, critics note, the latest extension protects works retroactively. How does giving Disney an extra 20 years of profit on a cartoon created in 1928 promote creativity today?

It doesn't. In fact, extending copyright length is more likely to discourage creativity than promote it, according to a provocative new study.

In a recent paper, Michelle Boldrin and David K. Levine argue that economists and policymakers have greatly overestimated the benefits that flow from copyrights and patents, while ignoring the economic and social costs.

"Grants of monopoly rights not only create monopoly distortions for innovations that would have taken place anyway, but may lead to less, rather than more, innovation," they wrote.

Their argument has sparked extensive debate among economic theorists. But you don't need an advanced degree to understand their main point:

When a Disney or a Microsoft puts more resources into enforcing and extending copyright monopolies than it does into creating or innovating in the first place, it's clear that something is out of balance. It's time for somebody - if not the Supreme Court, then Congress itself - to reevaluate the whole arrangement.



© 2001 inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.philly.com

First Post!
Copyright was originally created, if I'm not mistaken with the idea in mind to reward (in a reasonable fashion) creativity and ingenuity. It was used to foster an idea of "protection" for anyone who made a contribution that would benefit the _whole_ of society, or make it better. There was money behind it, but in a much more limited sense. Why would someone bother "building a better mousetrap" if he/she knew that the day after it hit the public domain someone else could just put his/her name on the same product and make money/fame from it? The founding fathers were trying to allow for protection from this and from thieves. That's about it. A way for people to feel free to create and innovate knowing that the long hard hours spent were not going to be claimed by someone else.
But there's a limit. While I agree that there is a lot that goes into the creative process, whether it be writing a song or a string of code, I cannot agree that the person deserves an _UNREASONABLE_ amount of time to profit from it. Talk about milking a dead cow!? 95 years is a long time for a rat to be collecting royalty payments wouldn't you say?
In business and criminal law there is a test of sorts. We'll call it the RPP Test. Reasonable Prudent Person. Simply put, this asks the question "Would a Reasonable, Prudent Person do this or that" It's a simple question, but it has been used many many times to decide issues.
Would a Reasonable Prudent Person expect to get paid for something in perpetuity for something he/she does today? NOPE.. none that *I* know anyhow. If we apply this same idea to the present copyright system, then we should actually be _lowering_ or lessening the time a copyright is in effect. It's not reasonable, right or fair that the great great grandchildren of a creative person can expect to live fat dumb and happy because grandpa or grandma came up with the jingle to "windows widgets" or whatever.
Either leave it alone (as is) or shorten it, but don't let the entire creative community as a whole suffer. There are more examples than I can count of things that are still in copyright, but aren't being used. They simply get forgotten because no one could get around the rights of the copyright holder.

Today the Supremes hear arguments in the Eldred case that challenges the 20 year extension. What has happened in the past 40 years is that copyright has been extended 11 times, thus turning a Limited Term to Perpetuity Thats right 11 times.

this is where it has gone since inception:

Date of Publication Creation

1790 to 1803=28 yrs
1804 to 1867=42 yrs
1868 to 1905=56 yrs
1906 to 1977=75 yrs
1978 to 1998=life + 50
1998->------=life + 75

Maximum term

This covers the majority of works. It assumes that all renewals were properly filed and does not take into account the situation of creation without publication prior to 1978. Usualy the term ws half of what was listed, and a renewal for the same term was available, but not automatic.

"...to reward (in a reasonable fashion) creativity and ingenuity..."
Yes, but simple anti-plagiarism law can get the job done just as well.

Right now, copyright mostly rewards not "creativity and ingenuity", but useless garbage.

If (for whatever reason) I like a song (which almost never happens), I want to reward the actual person/people who wrote/performed the song.
-I DO NOT want to reward Hilary Rosen & Minions.

I think ten years, give or take, is a reasonable time for the creator of a song to reap financial returns from his/her creation, after that...

The idea that a person's grandchildren can profit off of a copyrighted work that they had no part in creating is ridiculous.
I think the original intent of copyright was to ensure that the creator of the copyrighted work is the FIRST person in line to reap the rewards of that work.
Once the creator has had a go at the trough, then evryone else should have a crack at it.

To an extent. there needs to be a line. p2p is right, because noone is paying anything and i have the other person's consent.

And I know where this attitude of the Valentis, Rosens, Shermans et al. is coming from (i.e. their using copyright as an excuse to disenfranchise the "masses"). It's this arrogant, snotty "we're-so-much-better-than-everyone-else-who-is-lower-than-vermin" mentality, the belief that everything should be concentrated solely in the hands of a small clique of elitists (the more patronizing, overbearing and condescending, the better) and that the individual per se has no rights whatsoever, that his / her / their sole function in the society is to serve this clique, as opposed to "the customer is always right" mantra that existed up until about the Reagan era. It's the essence as exemplified by this type of attitude that invites comparisons to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro et al, towards their respective fiefdoms, even though the specifics differ (as certainly I'll admit); it's the guiding philosophy that's similar.

I don't think that people who can't play music should be in the music busness.

Of course most people constantly wail the lament of the shitbrain ---

"IF YOU LIKE CARS, SELL SHOES"

"promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

AUTHORS and INVENTORS! copyrights should lie only in the hands of creators. transferrable copyrights is a ludicrous notion.