Defending Posner with Mickey Mouse Sex Toys

So I was reading old stuff in The Economists' Voice, and I came across this letter and this response. The basic idea is that Judge Posner thinks that there might be a consumption externality with Mickey Mouse, and Boldrin and Levine don't. A consumption externality just means that my enjoyment of a product is affected by someone else's consumption of it. If there is a consumption externality, it might justify copyright protection.

Boldrin and Levine get unnecessarily sarcastic: "Perhaps we should give Disney a monopoly because it 'practices good husbandry of its characters?' If Disney had a monopoly on food, they would surely practice 'good husbandry' of food, leaving us all on the edge of starvation."

The sarcam is unwarranted because Posner's point is pretty solid. If anyone could print Mickey Mouse on anything, we would probably have Mickey Mouse sex toys and who knows what else (after years of reading Savage Love, I've learned not to rule anything out). Right now Mickey Mouse is a symbol of childhood fun and innocence. Actually, Mickey Mouse is merely a corporate symbol as far as I can tell; I can't remember ever watching a Mickey Mouse cartoon. He's a crappy character, honestly. But I'm straying from my point, which is that once Mickey Mouse starts getting plastered on sex toys, the jig is up. Disney characters succeed in part because they are relentlessly presented in a safe, sunny environment. They conjure up feelings of fun and imagination well within the bounds of decency. All of this comes crashing to an end when Mickey Mouse is plowing Donald Duck while Goofy watches.