Whitney Houston and the Morality of Copyright Term Extensions

The recent untimely death of diva and part time actress (who doesn't love "The Bodyguard"...) Whitney Houston has got me thinking about the recent extension of the Copyright act. (Recent as in 1998 -- but when you have a law that goes back to 1790, almost anything is "recent".) I think that the Act, even flawed as it was, demonstrated a triumph of Moral/Economic IP, as well as tangible evidence that Michael Eisner did not want Mickey to go off copyright on his watch.

Wow, that's random you say. Well not really. Using Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston as two recent examples, we can conclude that Copyright Terms that exist beyond the life of the artist, are in part, social insurance programs designed to care for the offspring or spouses of artists. The most recent extension of the copyright act is "Life + 70 years" for authors (or songwriters) and "120 Years after creation  / 95 Years after publication" for corporate authorship. Leaving aside the arguments about corporate authorship (which is where the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" comes into play), lets look at the effect of the term for regular authors.

Both Whitney and Micheal had substance abuse issues. Likely, these issues killed them. Both Whitney and Micheal have children who will grow up parent-less in a world which places a significant dollar value on their talent. Their heirs (notably their minor and semi-minor children) should be allowed to collect on the remaining value of the works, that society is willing to pay. This is more true in situations where the artist has died fairly young.

It is impossible to calculate the value of having a world renowned (and rich) artist as your parent. As a society, we have made a collective decision that the works of art are still valuable to us after the untimely passing of their creator. Therefore, easily identifiable heirs should be the recipient of that residual economic value. As it stands, Whitney's heir's have copyright income till 2082. That's a long time. But, Whitney's child is 18. If her mother was a non-substance abusing hedge fund manager, it would be obvious that by the time she was 88 she would have lived a life of privilege.

 If, as some argue, copyright terms should expire upon the death of the author, they as a society, are we prepared to send Micheal Jackson's children to love on the south side of Chicago with their abusive grandfather and enabling grandmother? From a moral rights stand point, the value of Micheal and Whitney's contribution to society in terms of economic output has vastly exceed the amount they were allowed to collect from society in life.

Intellectual Property is not just something that evil record companies use to sue you.  It is a form of deferred pension to those who create lasting works. It is a source of economic security for those left behind, when troubled talent meets an untimely end. IP should extend beyond the life of the artist because....I don't know...the children are the future.