In 1957 Ted Geisel, or Dr. Seuss, released the children's book The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Forty-three years later, in 2000, Universal Studios released a major motion picture based on this work and starring Jim Carrey. Though based on the 1957 work, the film was itself a huge economic driver. Production costs were over $125 million, which it then made back in both ticket and DVD sales. Interest in the film also spurred public interest in the original book, which saw sales rise 20% over the previous year and publication in nine additional languages. Seuss' works have also led to the creation of a theme park, ``Seuss Landing'' at Universal Studios, Orlando. To what does Dr. Seuss Enterprises attribute all this economic activity? Copyright. In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, attorneys for Seuss wrote, ``This park would never have been created had the Seuss works not been protected by copyrights'' (Seuss 9). Even nearly half a century after its creation, Seuss' works are creating benefit for both the economy and Seuss Enterprises. The copyright system is the underpinning that allows the content creation industry to exist. Though some have proposed that copyright terms be reduced, this is not an action that should be taken lightly. Reducing copyright terms would damage a key economic driver by lessening the incentive to build on older works, not allowing producers to fully capitalize on new works, and throwing the United States out of line with other countries' copyright protections.
Copyright protection, set up in the US Constitution, grants a limited legal monopoly to the author of artistic works. This monopoly exists so that creators have the incentive to do so, without fear that their work will be copied and distributed by others before they have had a chance to make back their own money. The industry of content creation has ballooned in the last few decades. Movies, TV, and music are but a few of the categories of work protected by copyright, but they are some of the biggest components of the US economy. In 1995 Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, testified to Congress that ``U.S. movies/TV programs and home video are America's most wanted exports, delivering back to our country more than $4 Billion in SURPLUS balance of trade. Intellectual property, consisting of the core copyright industries, movies, TV programs, home video, books, musical recordings and computer software comprise almost 4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, gather in some $45 Billion in revenues abroad, and has grown its employment at a rate four times faster than the annual rate of growth of the overall U.S. economy'' (Valenti). The sheer size of the entertainment industry makes any legislation that would affect it require extreme scrutiny. The length of a copyright, or its term, is one such area of law that directly affects the content producers.
Given the length of copyright terms, their most obvious implication is in their application to older works. Copyright term extensions have been essential in allowing companies the protections they require in order to engage in restoration of older works. This is especially important to the motion picture industry, whose vast film libraries contain large quantities of classic works. In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in defense of the 1998 copyright term extensions, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) explained why such long terms are not only beneficial, but necessary. The brief explained why studios let films sit rotting on the shelves instead of taking effort to preserve them. ``If, before the last few decades, the studios - like virtually all film makers and distributors - did not invest substantial sums in preservation, that failure was due in significant part to the absence of an economic incentive to do so'' (MPAA 15). Though these films spent their years producing no benefit, new mediums have created an environment where they can now do so. In return, the studios have started pouring money into preservation efforts, restoring old films in order to release them to the public. The MPAA writes that, ``Relatively new media such as cable television, video cassettes, and DVDs offer holders of copyrighted films vehicles for generating the substantial sums required for restoration and preservation ... But the costs of restoration must be invested up front, and, as many witnesses at the CTEA hearings noted, individuals or firms are unlikely to make the required investment in the absence of copyright protection'' (MPAA 17-18). Though economic benefit is the studios' main goal, the public also benefits when additional works are made available for purchase and viewing. Those who support the reduction of copyright terms argue that works should become available by passing into the public domain. While this may seem logical, it is an idealized view that makes no attempt to take into consideration the economic factors involved in the publication of old works. A classic film that falls into the public domain does not instantly become available to everyone. Work must still be done to restore the print to a viewable quality, and some company must still undertake to publish this restored work even though they have no protection for their effort.
The addition of twenty years to the copyright term also served to increase authors' incentive to create new works. Some of these works may be sequels, or otherwise derivative of previous work that otherwise would have been close to passing into the public domain. The MPAA sees this conclusion as obvious. ``The economic logic behind it is straightforward. Copyright owners - notably film studios - are unlikely to make the large investments required to produce derivative works ... if the remaining copyright term on the underlying work is insufficient to assure them of the continued exclusive right to profit from works building on the underlying work'' (MPAA 13). Term extensions also server to drive production of entirely new works. The additional protected period serves not only as extra time for the producer to benefit from their new work, it also provides an extended window in which income from an old work may be used to finance the production of a new one. A popular example is that of Noah Webster, who supported his family on the earnings of his grammar and speller while completing his dictionary. This is evidence contrary to the popular argument that term extensions on already created works cannot promote the arts.
A major factor in the promotion of the most recent copyright term extension act was the desire to bring US copyright law into parity with international law. In 1995 the European Union (EU) directed its members to make their copyright term life plus seventy years, and within the next few years all members did indeed do so. The EU also instructed its members to not hold copyright on a foreign work for longer than the work was offered copyright protection in its country of origin. The US Government's brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft offered the outcome of this scenario. ``Consequently,'' the brief read, ``if Congress had not altered the United States copyright term for subsisting works, American authors of such works would receive less protection in Europe than their European competitors'' (Ashcroft 38). The case can be easily made that allowing this inequity to occur would be detrimental to the United States' economic bottom line. AOL/Time Warner, in their amicus brief supporting the extensions, offered this argument. ``First, as noted above, securing hundreds of millions of dollars in export revenues - all of which would otherwise be foregone - provides considerable new capital for American institutional entities in the copyright sectors, much of which will be plowed back into financing, marketing, and distributing new creative endeavors, including by way of payments to individual authors'' (AOL 26). In a time of increasing national trade deficit, the government should be eager to help protect one of the few industries with a solid trade surplus.
It is because of these direct benefits that lengthened copyright terms must be maintained. The United States economy relies heavily on the entertainment industry, and therefore must take its wellbeing into account when crafting legislation. While shortening copyright terms might seem logical from an academic standpoint, the practical costs clearly outweigh any theoretical benefits. Shortened copyright terms would reduce the incentive to develop old works, lessen the desire to create new works, and competitively disadvantage American media in the global marketplace.