Clearly. The deeper question is why does our society value entertainment more than creation of other types of value?
Society has allowed copyright to extend virtually forever, while patents tend to last just 20 years. If you have money to invest in either industry with similar risk, which are you going to take a chance on? The one that will support you for life, and your family until the end of time, naturally. This indicates that we favour entertainment more than other types of intellectual property.
I realize people on here tend to be against property rights completely, but if we assume, for argument's sake, they are valuable for promoting creation as is the prevailing reason for having the system, shouldn't copyright be a far shorter period than patents?
Society has allowed copyright to extend virtually forever, while patents tend to last just 20 years. If you have money to invest in either industry with similar risk, which are you going to take a chance on? The one that will support you for life, and your family until the end of time, naturally. This indicates that we favour entertainment more than other types of intellectual property.
Not really; time is hardly the only factor you should take into account.
Firstly, copyright is limited to a specific work, while patents are usually more generic - I can invent a whole new literary genre, but unless people copy the text or very specific elements of my work, they can do copycats all they like. With patents, a whole class of technologies is often monopolized.
Copyrighted works are also subject to strong novelty effects. While copyright itself lasts for ungodly accounts of time, the vast, vast majority of works will stop producing relevant income in just a couple of years, if that, while a patented invention doesn't usually suffer from those problems.
People would make their own entertainment if sports and Hollywood were not available: games, stories, conversation, crafts, and so on. Our lives might even be a bit richer for it.
And in that sense, the entertainment industry captures value that we would be making anyhow. Yes their entertainment is better somehow, better in the sense that people will pay for it, so this is the bottom-line "better", inclusive of demand generators (eg, movie trailers, team rivalries, etc), and not necessarily a general-welfare "better".
You might even argue that this is welfare-capture: once you have seen the movie trailer (for free), or acquired team-loyalty (for free), your welfare becomes dependent on seeing what happens (not free). My son saw a trailer for WALL-E last night. Now he wants to see it. Having seen it, will his net welfare have increased? I don't know. He seems happy enough with his blocks and pencils and such.
> People would make their own entertainment if sports and Hollywood were not available
I'm afraid I disagree with you. I notice even when getting together with a group of friends to play games, there always tends to be someone who is happy to just sit back and watch the games take place. Some will make the entertainment and others will want to watch. It seems to be basic human nature; professional sports and Hollywood have just figured out how to make money from that.
I'm far from a fan of any sport. I absolutely abhor the disparity between professional athletes earnings and the "working" class' earnings. And abhor even more the money spent on college football (e.g., the budget for our university library was being slashed so much that frequently used journals were having their subscriptions cut, while at the same time the football team got a new stadium and dorm). So I say this as a non-fan of sports - sports can definitely have entertainment value. Just like I'm a fan predominantly of sci-fi and comedy, but I really don't enjoy a lot of horror, people have different tastes in entertainmetn. Just because you and I may not have a taste for sports entertainment, that doesn't mean it isn't entertainment.
"And abhor even more the money spent on college football (e.g., the budget for our university library was being slashed so much that frequently used journals were having their subscriptions cut, while at the same time the football team got a new stadium and dorm)."
The irony is that at almost every university, the football team is a profit center, not a cost center. It' entirely likely that your library would have had deeper budget cuts without that football team.
Society has allowed copyright to extend virtually forever, while patents tend to last just 20 years. If you have money to invest in either industry with similar risk, which are you going to take a chance on? The one that will support you for life, and your family until the end of time, naturally. This indicates that we favour entertainment more than other types of intellectual property.
I realize people on here tend to be against property rights completely, but if we assume, for argument's sake, they are valuable for promoting creation as is the prevailing reason for having the system, shouldn't copyright be a far shorter period than patents?