Optimal copyright

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:02 pm

Talk about far reaching empirical data and implications.

In article about paper: FOREVER MINUS A DAY? SOME THEORY AND EMPIRICS OF OPTIMAL COPYRIGHT, the Cambridge researcher concludes that the optimal copyright term that maximizes creativity from artists with social welfare to be 14 years. Coincidentally, that's the same term the US's original copyright law established, but has since repeatedly extended to author's death plus 70 years. Because unfortunately, "the level of protection is not usually determined by a benevolent and rational policy-maker but rather by lobbying."

From the paper, a nice summary observation:

paper wrote:

In particular, we show that (a) optimal protection decreases as the cost of production falls (and vice-versa); and (b) the level of optimal protection, in general, declines over time.

Cost of production falls? Check (with advances in computing). Is there still a use for copyright? Yes. The problem isn't with copyright itself, but lobbying done for its indefinite extension of term and enforcement.

In related news, UK Rejects Extending Music Copyright

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:39 am

I always thought that the purpose of copyrighting was to keep the profit potential of a creative product from being diluted by immitation from other artists... The only reason the four-letter AAcronym AArseholes are focusing on copyright laws as they apply to file sharing is because the profit model has changed, and the dinosaurs want to try to keep making money the same old way.

The salad days of turning a huge profit by soaking the consumer for a hunk of vinyl, magnetic tape or acrylic are over.

So how do media companies make money in the isohunt era? Look at what people will pay for... people pay for entertainment.

Music should be free on the internet without penalty, used to lure people to concerts and pay-per-view events. Make the event longer and more interesting... offer extras. People will pay for it!

Want more people in the theaters? Make it worth going and we'll pay for it!

As it is, any bloke can have a home theater system in private that rivals the quality of the average theater. Every movie theater should use high end digital movies, stadium seating and IMAX screens. Charge extra to sit in the prime seats in the middle and give me a flippin headphone jack so I can block out the yahoos. If you want to go the next step, take a cue from Disney and put effects in the seats.

Huge up-front and long-term costs with no increase in margins, you say? Fine, then watch your business fade away.

--Izzy

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:50 pm

you tell it Izzy

fact is i pay $100 a month for my HD satellite feed with all the multi-room trimmings and then somebody asks me "but if it is free on the internet then how is anything gonna get made?" not even my dad when we was kids paid that much for media in a month

IH best advice 4u is dont look back for adivice but look at what is happening in the market and what is about to become. is NOT an academic argument fool no matter how justified it makes you feel. fact is no USA court ruled against technology eva. fact is look at the capital expenditure of bittorrent.com under the sponsorship of the MPAA, they is building server farms like p2p is foreva

why i see no countersuits from Isohunt? fire your lawyers, get some men who want a fight and make a countersuit of racketeering ffs be serious. canadian pussy is no good for a gunfight, we need some mean men and Izzy to defend Isohunt

fact is 24 hours after you first posted this very interesting news Izzy is the only respondent, nobody knows what the hell you talking about because you all out there on a limb by yourself dude. you gotta shake and make. and believe there is a legion of filesharers following in your footsteps. and get real with the mobsters

i was installing moblock on my servers last week and then i saw it "mob lock" ... lock the mob from your system. you dont run moblock do u IH

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:38 pm

No, laws are unlikely to change to something optimal for society because of lobbying and money by corporations that want otherwise. But it's interesting to see how far off are we in reality with what should be. And 14 years is not the magic number, it's an estimate and there's data the paper didn't or couldn't include in the calculations because they aren't available.

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:51 am

there is a fundamental in free market capital efficiency theory which points to the fact after a certain amount of time or change then the cost of collecting taxes becomes so great as to not make it cost effieicent to do so. America won her independence on that priciple, the British found it too expensive to maintain the tax regime

so you can change the regime, which is what is happening at the moment. and also happened when the printing press was invented and the catholic church made it a crime punishable by death to own a printed copy of the bible

yes it is very interesting to see how much money they have to spend on lobbying and creating regimes which are extraordinary in their state of removel from reality. but it cannot continue, it is an unnatural animal sustained by bad economics and it is growing like a cancerous tumour before its death. only shame it it will take lots of good folks with it

in this respect time is a friend IH. buy time with legitimate countersuits, buy time with ip filtering, it is your perogative and both are cheap. after all, the establishment is doing nothing more than buying as much time as they possible can to extend their ailing tax regime

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:02 pm

What I think we need is a good 5-year Great Depression. It would help the world in so many ways. Just have the American Economy completely crash, with the world's following closely behind. Here are the benefits we could see:

1. Money = Nothing.
I'm talking about hyperinflation. Money will be worthless. Completely and utterly worthless. Eventually it will be met with hyperdeflation, if the proper steps. But during this 5-year period, profit would be virtually impossible. This would cripple all mogels. The world would continue as it has always done. A lack of green-and-red paper isn't going to cause the end of the world.

2. Increased Employment
Employment always increases during hard times. People have to get out and do some work. They are payed in food and shelter, perhaps, but they actually go out, because sitting on their behinds doing nothing will get them nothing. It happened in the last Great Depression, and it will happen again.

3. Increased Competence in Leadership
This one is key. No longer will actors or oil sheiks be able to get into important political offices simply because of their money. This will cause an increase in the inherent competency of leadership. The leaders will naturally have to be better since they are unable to buy their way into office. The tolerance of incompetence will be much less, since the people will be much less happy overall.

4. Change in Focus
Since production will continue in the same way, people will be focused more on improving their way of life, ideally. They will try to increase output, invent more, and they will be much more willing to share. Not only because they do not have the luxury for self-righteousness, but they want the same sharing to be given them in their times of need.

I think that the world needs to move beyond its current systems. Democracy is a fixture of the past. We need to move beyond it. Capitalism is a fixture of a different dream. A consumer-driven economy can't last forever. There's a critical point when it must shatter from the conflicting and indefatigable compulsions. We need to move past it. To what, I can't say. Perhaps a society where intelligence is actually valued. A society in which intelligent people might take the forefront, instead of ignorant idiots. A society where ideas can be exchanged and built upon and embettered through a free forum of thought. This is just my opinion, but I think that we've got to change the world. To a world without money or profit. A world where people are known for their minds instead of their purses. Albert Einstein was offered to be the president of Israel because of his mind. He is unanimously, universally respected and adored. Not because he was rich, good-looking, or that he owned anything of note, but simply because he had a brilliance of mind that unites the world in a small way. Call me crazy, but it's my dream.

~Ryan Riverside

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 pm

crazy talk

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:54 am

Ive started to see websites "ceased by the FBI" as part of an anti piracy program. At the bottom is their friendly reminder that piracy is a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years prison as well as boast that they now have your ip address for simply visiting the website...
Any one worried about isoHunt? i can't say im not.

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:37 am

The FBI has no jurisdiction over iH anymore. The CIA might take it out, but not the FBI. Laughing

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:52 pm

"He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." -Jim Elliot

... a surrender-monkey attitude, like the French in WWII

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:13 am

guimaraes317, copying the same exact message in three posts is not an acceptable way of reaching your 3 post goal. Did we forget to read the rules?

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:41 pm

The problem with this issue, is not what's "right", but what's practiced I believe.

I would wager to say that the majority of people would agree with the idea that an artist deserves to profit off of their work. It is after all how they make their living. Lengths of copyrights for an artist, I personally feel could go up to their lifetime, if the artist feels they are so entitled. It is their work and creativity after all. Finally on this point, I don't think most artists would have the same death-grip on their older works as opposed to large corporations, and eventually would allow the works into "public domain".

Major labels are not the artists. They have purchased the intellectual rights, and that is ok too, however I do not feel they have the same right to profit off it indefinitely. Using the semi-arbitrary number of 14 years, that itself is a wonderfully long time, more than enough to turn a profit from someone else’s works.

In any case, the connection to piracy is limited. There’s 2 fundamental types of pirates as I see it. 1. The pirate that steals because they can/enjoy it/are just unwilling to pay. 2. The pirate that steals because they cannot otherwise acquire the item, weather through lack of availability or money to make the purchase. In the case of number 1, it does not matter what you do, they will steal anyway. The case of number 2 however, CAN be influenced for or against, by making the item available and thus so at a reasonable cost to them, copyright or no.

The real crux of it, is that copyrights are great for big-business to big-business negotiation, where you can sue and turn a profit for a theft. For the average person, it's a highly ineffective way to enforce things. With the proliferation of digital media and cheap writeable media, the physical layer of protection from copyright infringement is broken down. If you want people to pay, give them something they feel is worth paying for. As surprising as it may be, I personally think more would pay for what they like than not.