Optimum Copyright Period Decided by Math 442
An anonymous reader writes "So how long should a copyright be valid for? A Cambridge student has stepped into the discussion with a dispassionately calculated estimate of the optimal period a copyright should be granted. Ars' point of view: 'Neither the US nor the UK are in any danger of rethinking copyright law from scratch, but if they were looking for guidance in how to set up their systems, Pollock has it. He develops a set of equations focused specifically on the length of copyright and uses as much empirical data as possible to crunch the numbers. The result? An optimal copyright term of 14 years, which is designed to encourage the best balance of incentive to create new work and social welfare that comes from having work enter the public domain (where it often inspires new creative acts).' The original paper is available (pdf) online."
Proving once again... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In the United States... (Score:3, Informative)
Ever wondered why Disney keeps rereleasing those classics from the "Disney Vault"?
For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright
Not mathematics, but economics (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In the United States... (Score:5, Informative)
It's because the slashdot crowd is concerned about freedoms, and freedoms lost.
It's because many in the slashdot crowd believe in standing on the shoulder's of giants to make their own works. (which can't be done with the current copyright).
Although they are no doubt the exception (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In the United States... (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't work that way. Even if an early version of Windows went public domain, Microsoft still doesn't have to release the source code. You'd be able to copy the disks as much as you wanted, but the code would only be available if Microsoft released it.
Landes & Posner said the same thing 5 years ag (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Proving once again... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the interests that controlled the tiny minority of works that continued to be profitable after 28 years, then 56 years, lobbied for and got legislation that extended the term of all works.
Re:Not mathematics, but economics (Score:5, Informative)
The paper is clearly not a paper about mathematics. No 'new math' is being invented. But to say "there is no mathematics in the manuscript, only economics" is not at all right. The paper has plenty of math in it, used to analyze an economics question. That is like opening up a physics journal, looking at all the equations, and concluding "there is no mathematics in these manuscripts, only physics". Physics requires mathematics. Economics requires mathematics. Well, actually the paper has 13 theorems presented and proved. Again, these are not pure-mathematical theorems, they are economic theorems being proved using mathematical techniques. I'm not sure what you mean by "real math." Accounting uses "real math." Engineering uses "real math." Analyzing the economics of copyright using rigorous equations and logical mathematical arguments is, in my estimation, "real math." He is using math as a tool, yes, but that doesn't make it "fake math." Moreover I have trouble believing that accounting typically involves setting out abstract theorems and proving them.
Re:None of you understand... (Score:5, Informative)
E.g. Peter Pan, Sleepy Hollow, Cinderella, Snow White, etc.
You can hold a trademark over a particular design or styling of a public domain character or concept, in a particular class of goods or services. But you can't use that trademark to block the creation or marketing of further works derived from that public domain character.
Hence, there's a peanut butter company out there with a Peter Pan trademark for their foodstuffs and it happily coexists alongside Disney's Peter Pan trademarks, and all the other assorted Peter Pan trademarks -- none of which stopped BJ Hogan from making his own derivative Peter Pan movie.
But *welfare* was generated... (Score:2, Informative)
Now, you may say "well, for every dollar Sony got, Joe Public had to spend one", and that it really just balances out. But that is a fallacy. Joe Public saw that the price of a ticket was $10, or that you could rent it for $4, or buy it for $15, or whatever. Joe Public did so. And, although some people wish they hadn't, most people feel that they got some good out of seeing it, or owning a copy. When you buy a $10 movie ticket, you admit that you think you will be better off with $10 fewer and having seen the movie. Of course, you may be dissapointed, but judging by the number of people who went and saw the second and third movies, it looks like people got a bargain.
The article talks about this in economics terms: it's called surplus. If I am willing to buy something at a certain price, that is because I think it is more valuable to me than the money. The difference between what it actually costs and what I feel it is worth is the "consumer surplus". For some people, it is low. For a product of somewhat unknown quality, it may even end up being negative. But, for the most part, the surplus is positive. The "producer surplus" is similar, although you are probably familiar with it by a more mundane word: profit. These two surpluses are the only reason why people buy or sell anything: because both sides feel that they will be better off for making the transaction.
Now, this doesn't mean that society would have been better off if the original Spiderman copyrights had expired, and the movie wasn't made. Perhaps the combined surpluses would have been larger if we'd all gotten cheap copies of the old comic books. But, given that the movie was made, it *did* leave society better off.
Although, if Spiderman was public domain, Sony still could have made a Spiderman movie; they just wouldn't have had to pay Marvel as much. All other things the same, with lower costs they likely would have done a combination of lowering prices (to increase demand) and pocketing some of it. Which would have increased the wellbeing of *both* Sony and moviegoers.
Re:None of you understand... (Score:3, Informative)
Steamboat Willie (1928) is eight minutes of silent-era sight gags with a thin narrative thread.
Nitrate stock. Synchronized Cinephone [wikipedia.org] sound-on-disk.
That makes the original an artifact for MoMA and the Library of Congress.
The digital restoration on Disney DVD: $15 Vintage Mickey [moviegoldmine.com]
The expiration of copyright gives you the right to produce derivatives based on the characters and story of Steamboat Willie - and only Steamboat Willie.
If you want the Mouse of The Sorcerer's Apprentice,* you will have to wait a little longer.
[*Fantasia (1940) Three-strip Technicolor. Fantasound [widescreenmuseum.com] Three-channel stereo.
Do you see a pattern forming here? The expiration of copyright doesn't guarantee the survival of primary sources or the money and resources needed to restore them.]
Re:Often they do (Score:3, Informative)
See page 25. The inverse question of which ranges of values are possible for a given optimal copyright term are examined, which as at least as much information as working forward from the assumed decay rates. Yes, you can get anywhere from 2 to 50 years because the market is incredibly dynamic. People are still buying Lord of the Rings because it's a very good book, but the pulp fiction of the 40's is probably making very little profit for its owners. Poetry from earlier in the 20th century is still popular, and the works of Shakespeare still sell pretty well too. To actually determine which decay values are appropriate would require statistical examination of the income from works over their copyrighted lifetime and some subjective estimate of value to society as a whole.
I don't see you arguing with the model, just the choice of initial values to work with. The choice was probably because the range examined includes the vast majority of current copyright periods. 95 year copyright is only a couple decades old, so there's very little empirical data. All that exists is anecdotal evidence of works that were going to enter the public domain but didn't, and very few of those works have any appreciable value now, at least not in terms of exclusive publishing rights and profits to the (probably deceased) owner of the work.
Re:In the United States... (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know where you're from but U.S. copyright law has changed many times since the original U.S. copyright law was drafted in 1790. The life + 50 years law was enacted with the 1976 copyright act.
Every extension from 1831 on has applied retroactively. Here's a rundown of the law:
Pinocchio - Full book published in 1883. Would have entered the public domain no later than 1939.
The Reluctant Dragon - Published 1898. Grahame was a British author so he didn't get U.S. copyright protection.
Wind in the Willows - Published 1908. Grahame was a British author so he didn't get U.S. copyright protection.
The Sword and the Rose (1953) - Based on When Knighthood Was in Flower published in 1898. Would have entered the public domain in either 1926 or 1954. A 1961 study showed that only 7% of books sought copyright extensions. Considering the popularity of the book there's a good chance it was extended. Perhaps that's why Disney filmed and originally published The Sword and the Rose in the U.K. It was published in the U.S. in 1956.
The Jungle Book - Published in 1894. Would have entered the public domain no later than 1940.