[LINK] FW: Nobody "deserves" copyright

Tue Apr 12 09:08:49 AEST 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Koltai [mailto:tomk at unwired.com.au] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2011 7:54 AM
> To: 'Kim Holburn'
> Subject: RE: [LINK] Nobody "deserves" copyright
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
> > [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Kim Holburn
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2011 7:00 AM
> > To: Link list
> > Subject: [LINK] Nobody "deserves" copyright
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/03/30/4457/
> > 
> > ......
> > 
> > > Wise assessment of copyright policy should have nothing to
> > do with how
> > > you feel about the person or entity who holds the right at any
> > > particular time, because copyright policy is not about 
> identifying 
> > > wonderful and meritorious people and ensuring - certainly 
> not as an 
> > > end in itself, anyway - that their income is proportioned 
> to their 
> > > intrinsic moral desert - or lack thereof. We are all the massive 
> > > beneficiaries of millennia of accumulated human scientific 
> > knowledge
> > > and cultural output, and not one of us did anything do
> > deserve a jot
> > > of it. We're all just extremely lucky not to have been born
> > cavemen.
> > > The greatest creative genius alive would be hard pressed to
> > create a
> > > smiley faced smeared in dung on a tree trunk without that huge and
> > > completely undeserved inheritance.
> > > 
> > > So banish the word "deserve" from your mind when you think about
> > > copyright. Nobody "deserves" a goddamn thing. (I say 
> this, for what 
> > > it's worth, as someone who makes his living entirely through the 
> > > production of "intellectual property.") The only - the only 
> > - relevant
> > > question is whether a marginal restriction on the general
> > ability to
> > > use information incentivizes enough additional information
> > production
> > > over the long run to justify denying that marginal use to
> > every other
> > > human being on the planet, whether for simple consumption
> > or further
> > > creation. That's an empirical question, and while I
> > strongly suspect
> > > the answer will generally be "not by a longshot" beyond a 
> whole lot
> > > more limited level of protection than we currently provide, 
> > I'm happy
> > > to be persuaded otherwise along any particular dimension.
> > But if you
> > > want to make an argument that turns in any significant
> > respect on how
> > > unlikeable big corporations are or how marvelous creative
> > people are.
> > > well, spare me. And the rest of us. Because in both cases it's
> > > probably true, but as a policy matter, nobody should 
> really give a 
> > > damn.
> 
> Nice find Kim, thanks.
> 
> Philosophy 101... I shall now doubtless spend the next 
> millennia of sleepless nights pontificating on cavemen, stick 
> and smiley face... 
> So if the caveman drew the smiley face and no-one saw it 
> before the rains washed it away, how do we know that he 
> didn't draw it ?
> 
> I guess the takeaway from Julians' essay is that copyright is 
> merely an attempt to own the historical remix of original 
> ideas down through the ages by a few. 
> 
> A very wise man is Julian.
> 
> The comments are also telling...
> Quote/
> There is an empirical reason for treating corporations, 
> partnerships, and other legal persons differently than human 
> beings with respect to copyrights: corporations are 
> essentially immortal. ... Corporations, partnerships, and 
> foundations can exist in perpetuity, they can hold copyrights 
> on works for as long as the law allows. And as a matter of 
> public choice theory, "immortal" legal persons with 
> substantial copyright interests and money to back them up 
> have strong incentives to game the system. In fact, this is 
> precisely why U.S. (and international) copyright law is such 
> a mess - media corporations with large copyright portfolios 
> wrote a business model based on perpetual copyright, and then 
> literally bought the laws to prop it up (ACTA, DMCA, etc.). /Quote
> 
> And the commenter goes on to talk about copyrights being 
> transferred to corporations. E.g.: as per Philips' comment 
> the other day about the Mickey Mouse extension to the US 
> Copyright act - changing copyright from 50 to 75 years for 
> the sake of a Corporation. (OK, for the sake of a digital 
> mouse that belongs to a corporation.)
> 
> The commenter then goes onto to quote Rufus Pollock Paper: 
> (Well worth a read) @ 
> 
> Short form PowerPoint: 
> http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright
_talk.pdf
Formal Paper
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf

Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright

Quote/
Abstract 
The optimal level for copyright has been a matter for extensive debate
over the last decade. This paper contributes several new results on this
issue divided into two parts. In the first, a parsimonious theoretical
model is used to prove several novel propositions about the optimal
level of protection. Specifically, we demonstrate that (a) optimal
copyright falls as the costs of production go down (for example as a
result of digitization) and that (b) the optimal level of copyright
will, in general, fall over time. The second part of the paper focuses
on the specific case of copyright term. Using a simple model we
characterise optimal term as a function of a few key parameters. We
estimate this function using a combination of new and existing data on
recordings and books and find an optimal term of around fifteen years.
This is substantially shorter than any current copyright term and
implies that existing copyright terms are too long. /Quote

/body