You also assume that a limited copyright is a punishment.
That was not my intent. Discounting the emotionally charged term "punishment", the point I was trying to get across is that the goal of "promoting the progress" is met equally by (all other things being equal) ten authors writing one book as one author writing ten books.
Extremely few works of art have a "reasonably knowable NPV".
I guess it depends on how you define "reasonably". Of course, the potential profit of works of art are wildly variable. But every hour of every day, some book deal or record deal is signed and the amounts of those deals are based on a standard set of rules and assumptions. It's this "market value", determined by the relative content industries, that are higher based on longer copyright durations.
But this does nothing to encourage new works, which is exactly the problem. A 3rd party who had nothing to do with creating the work rakes in the cash, while no new works are encouraged from the original author, and those works not deemed profitable disappear from history.
Longer copyright duration encourage new works because longer copyright durations increase the NPV of copyrightable works. Yes, a big part of the motivation to write a new book is for personal reasons, but money is a big part too. The simple fact is that people are motivated by money and people are more motivated by more money. It's as simple as that.
You act like the corporation itself is some separate eternal person that exists apart from those who run it and that cares about what happens to it 500 years from now.
Ah, I see the point you're making now, and there's sense in it. But wouldn't it be better to try and find the sweet spot where the most output is generated? And isn't it logical to assume that extending income protection to beyond the life of an artist almost assuredly misses that sweet spot?
I don't know who said this, but one of my favorite expressions is "It's not reality, but the perception of reality that is important." I alluded to this in another response, but the monetary incentive that an author would have to create a new work is affected by how much the publisher values similar works. So, while you and I might agree that the "sweet spot" between the benefit to society versus benefit to the individual artist comes much sooner in the lifespan of the copyrighted work than what big content want, I think you have to look at what incentives are actually in play, not what incentives should be.
But as mentioned above, those third parties are equally subject to the same analysis being that corporations are composed of people and people have limited lifespans.
Given how corporations work, your argument makes no sense. If an author sells the rights to their book to a corporation, the corporation owns the rights, not any of the individuals in the corporation. Every single person who worked for the corporation at the time the book's rights were purchased could die and it wouldn't make a difference. The corporation would still own the IP. That's one of the main purposes of a corporation.
The fact is that most works don't have a very long active shelf life anyway. They stop generating meaningful income long before the rights expire.
Be that as it may, the perception of big content is that it is worthwhile to have longer copyright durations or else why would they want to extend it? I would agree that, for the most part, a corporation is going to make most of their money in the early lifespan of the work, but if I'm an agent working out a deal with a publisher and I know that the publisher believes they'll make more money in the long run, the fact that they probably won't is irrelevant.
The reality is that the likes of Salinger and Mitchell only found out that they had a huge moneyspinner AFTER the work was created and at that point sat back on their laurels.
Agreed, however, in the context of the argument that the monetary rewards from a government-granted monopoly contributes on an overall basis to "promoting the progress", it makes sense that extending the duration increases the potential monetary reward and therefore the incentive. If you don't believe that there are any benefits to copyright, then yeah, extending them wouldn't make any sense.
income occurring after your death can not possibly add present value because after you die you can't have income.
It adds to the net present value because the "ownership" of copyrights are transferable to third-parties (mostly corporations). So, the author may die, every employee of a corporation may die, but the corporation itself still "owns" the copyright. Because the corporation can calculate how much money the IP will make over the duration of its lifetime, regardless of the lifespan of any one particular person, the work has a reasonably knowable NPV.
Another thing is that the present value of future returns diminishes in value the longer into the future the return occurs.
It's a good thing then that NPV takes diminishing rates of return into account.
I didn't say that an non-prolific author should be rewarded more than a prolific author, just that they shouldn't be "punished" or looked on as less of a contributor to society based solely on the number of published books. Sure, if someone writes multiple Catcher in the Rye quality books, they should get paid more than J.D. Salinger. But from an overall benefit to society, I don't see any real difference, on a per work basis, between a book written by someone who only wrote one book and a book by someone who wrote multiple books. It's irrelevant to the overall benefit to society.
If an artist has to create a new successful work every so often in order to make money, they are more likely to do so. If they can profit from a single work for for the rest of their life, they are less likely to bother.
From my previous post in this thread:
"In short, 'promoting the progress' doesn't care if one author writes ten books or ten authors write one book each, as long as those ten books are written and benefit the public."
All that longer copyrights do - *especially* when they extend beyond their author's life - is enable corporations to tie up our cultural heritage in order to make easy money.
I couldn't agree more that there are negatives to extending copyrights, even that the negatives far outweigh the positives. However, the question was about if there is any social value in extending copyrights. There may be more more drawbacks that counter the benefit that I'm pointing out, but I still believe that what I describe is a valid benefit.
Ah, but the idea is to get artists to create MULTIPLE works, not one.
No it's not. "Promoting the progress" has no stipulation about the output of any one particular artist. It's about the overall output and its benefit to society. If you're a Margaret Mitchell or a J.D. Salinger, you shouldn't be penalized because you don't have a prolific career. To the extent that money is an incentive to create a copyrightable work, the argument that an increased NVP allows for a greater monetary reward is equal regardless of the number of works. In short, "promoting the progress" doesn't care if one author writes ten books or ten authors write one book each, as long as those ten books are written and benefit the public.
A few hours, weeks or even years of work turn into a lifetime (plus) guarantee of exclusivity. Where is the social value in that?
Playing devil's advocate, I can see an argument for extending the duration of copyright, even past the author's lifetime. In short, the longer the copyright, the higher the net present value is of the copyright, and the more incentive that an author will have to create a new work. If an artist writes a book and wants to sell it to a publisher, the longer that the publisher has the rights to that book, the more money that the author can demand for the rights. Sure, the author may die long before the copyright runs out, but he'd get the benefit of that extended copyright duration in his lifetime.
There's just something that I don't like about games which are based on paying cash for in-game items. I feel like it would mean that a kid with his parents' credit card could just buy all of the items that another player would have to earn by in-game activities. Yeah, I know that Turbine are trying out new business models and on one level, I admire them for that, but it just seeme unfair. I suppose there is a way to strike a balance, but in my mind, buying in-game items just seems to much like buying gold from a gold farmer.
I could easily see a boardroom filled with lawyers, execs and engineers cranking out as many sticky notes of bullet points as possible and a constant stream of submissions to the government.
I only know what I've read on TD, but I don't think any one is proposing to get rid of the patent application process and just grant a patent to every application.
I think it comes down to permission. In our current system, you're basically held ransom to the demands of the IP owner. You either pay them their fee and get to use the technology or you don't. But if it's more of an open environment, where anyone can use an idea, but they have to pay based on their profit, it would be more likely that more companies would be using the idea. And the more companies using an idea, the more likely it would be that those companies would want to find a way to eliminate the requirement to pay the fee. In short, I think the pressure would shift from the corporate world mostly wanting to expand copyright and patent durations to mostly wanting to shorten them.
The only difference I can see is that the government would be more enabled to screw over everyone and thus further encourage reform(which this idea is allegedly supposed to be)
I tend to be in favor of smaller government, so I'm definatelly not saying that I completely agree with this model. But it is interesting to think about a system that better worked to achieve the original goals of patents and copyrights.
Seems to me that most of the issues with patients, copyrights, etc. go away if we just limit the duration.
I would tend to agree, however the problem with the current system is that it's prone to the boil-the-frog-slowly effect. If, every few years, IP maximalists bump up the duration of a patent or a copyright, the general public doesn't really feel the effect and they get away with it.
The system being described has its problems, but it seems to be less reliant on one particular factor that can be manipulated slowly over time.
I see at least one benefit to this kind of system: the incentive for companies would be to move IP into the public domain as fast as possible. If you're paying the government a fee/tax for using some bit of publicly-held IP, you'd want to get that off your books as soon as possible. It would completely reverse the current incentive which is to stockpile as much IP as possible.
permission ought to be sought when this music is being used for PR purposes
That may be your opinion of how things should work, but it's my understanding that the standard contracts that artists sign don't give them this right. As others have pointed out, as long as the venue pays its dues, they can use any song that is covered by the license in any way they see fit. If an artist wants to exert that level of control over how their songs are used, they shouldn't sign with a label who works with big licensing organizations (like the RIAA).
If the artists want to sell their soul to big music, that's their right.
I agree with the overall point you're making, but in regards to the specific comment above, I disagree. I would say that an artist has a right to the opportunity to be paid. If I make a bunch of crappy clay ashtrays and try to sell them at the local arts fair, no one has an obligation to buy them i.e. I don't have the right to be paid. It's like the US Constitution which stipulates the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.
I do agree with your last two statements, but I think your first statement exposes the general bias that many people have to justify the second two.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
That was not my intent. Discounting the emotionally charged term "punishment", the point I was trying to get across is that the goal of "promoting the progress" is met equally by (all other things being equal) ten authors writing one book as one author writing ten books.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
I guess it depends on how you define "reasonably". Of course, the potential profit of works of art are wildly variable. But every hour of every day, some book deal or record deal is signed and the amounts of those deals are based on a standard set of rules and assumptions. It's this "market value", determined by the relative content industries, that are higher based on longer copyright durations.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Longer copyright duration encourage new works because longer copyright durations increase the NPV of copyrightable works. Yes, a big part of the motivation to write a new book is for personal reasons, but money is a big part too. The simple fact is that people are motivated by money and people are more motivated by more money. It's as simple as that.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
You've just defined the term "corporation".
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
I don't know who said this, but one of my favorite expressions is "It's not reality, but the perception of reality that is important." I alluded to this in another response, but the monetary incentive that an author would have to create a new work is affected by how much the publisher values similar works. So, while you and I might agree that the "sweet spot" between the benefit to society versus benefit to the individual artist comes much sooner in the lifespan of the copyrighted work than what big content want, I think you have to look at what incentives are actually in play, not what incentives should be.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Given how corporations work, your argument makes no sense. If an author sells the rights to their book to a corporation, the corporation owns the rights, not any of the individuals in the corporation. Every single person who worked for the corporation at the time the book's rights were purchased could die and it wouldn't make a difference. The corporation would still own the IP. That's one of the main purposes of a corporation.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Be that as it may, the perception of big content is that it is worthwhile to have longer copyright durations or else why would they want to extend it? I would agree that, for the most part, a corporation is going to make most of their money in the early lifespan of the work, but if I'm an agent working out a deal with a publisher and I know that the publisher believes they'll make more money in the long run, the fact that they probably won't is irrelevant.
The reality is that the likes of Salinger and Mitchell only found out that they had a huge moneyspinner AFTER the work was created and at that point sat back on their laurels.
Agreed, however, in the context of the argument that the monetary rewards from a government-granted monopoly contributes on an overall basis to "promoting the progress", it makes sense that extending the duration increases the potential monetary reward and therefore the incentive. If you don't believe that there are any benefits to copyright, then yeah, extending them wouldn't make any sense.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Net Present Value
It adds to the net present value because the "ownership" of copyrights are transferable to third-parties (mostly corporations). So, the author may die, every employee of a corporation may die, but the corporation itself still "owns" the copyright. Because the corporation can calculate how much money the IP will make over the duration of its lifetime, regardless of the lifespan of any one particular person, the work has a reasonably knowable NPV.
Another thing is that the present value of future returns diminishes in value the longer into the future the return occurs.
It's a good thing then that NPV takes diminishing rates of return into account.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Based on your reply, it appears you missed or did not understand the following clause in my post...
"To the extent that money is an incentive to create a copyrightable work,"
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Net Present Value
From my previous post in this thread:
"In short, 'promoting the progress' doesn't care if one author writes ten books or ten authors write one book each, as long as those ten books are written and benefit the public."
All that longer copyrights do - *especially* when they extend beyond their author's life - is enable corporations to tie up our cultural heritage in order to make easy money.
I couldn't agree more that there are negatives to extending copyrights, even that the negatives far outweigh the positives. However, the question was about if there is any social value in extending copyrights. There may be more more drawbacks that counter the benefit that I'm pointing out, but I still believe that what I describe is a valid benefit.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Net Present Value
No it's not. "Promoting the progress" has no stipulation about the output of any one particular artist. It's about the overall output and its benefit to society. If you're a Margaret Mitchell or a J.D. Salinger, you shouldn't be penalized because you don't have a prolific career. To the extent that money is an incentive to create a copyrightable work, the argument that an increased NVP allows for a greater monetary reward is equal regardless of the number of works. In short, "promoting the progress" doesn't care if one author writes ten books or ten authors write one book each, as long as those ten books are written and benefit the public.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Net Present Value
Playing devil's advocate, I can see an argument for extending the duration of copyright, even past the author's lifetime. In short, the longer the copyright, the higher the net present value is of the copyright, and the more incentive that an author will have to create a new work. If an artist writes a book and wants to sell it to a publisher, the longer that the publisher has the rights to that book, the more money that the author can demand for the rights. Sure, the author may die long before the copyright runs out, but he'd get the benefit of that extended copyright duration in his lifetime.
On the post: Dungeons And Dragons Players Revolt, Storm Super Rewards Castle
On the post: Compulsory Licensing Rather Than Artificial Monopolies?
Re: Re: An incentive for public domain
I only know what I've read on TD, but I don't think any one is proposing to get rid of the patent application process and just grant a patent to every application.
On the post: Compulsory Licensing Rather Than Artificial Monopolies?
Re: Re: An incentive for public domain
I think it comes down to permission. In our current system, you're basically held ransom to the demands of the IP owner. You either pay them their fee and get to use the technology or you don't. But if it's more of an open environment, where anyone can use an idea, but they have to pay based on their profit, it would be more likely that more companies would be using the idea. And the more companies using an idea, the more likely it would be that those companies would want to find a way to eliminate the requirement to pay the fee. In short, I think the pressure would shift from the corporate world mostly wanting to expand copyright and patent durations to mostly wanting to shorten them.
The only difference I can see is that the government would be more enabled to screw over everyone and thus further encourage reform(which this idea is allegedly supposed to be)
I tend to be in favor of smaller government, so I'm definatelly not saying that I completely agree with this model. But it is interesting to think about a system that better worked to achieve the original goals of patents and copyrights.
On the post: Compulsory Licensing Rather Than Artificial Monopolies?
Re: Duration is the problem
I would tend to agree, however the problem with the current system is that it's prone to the boil-the-frog-slowly effect. If, every few years, IP maximalists bump up the duration of a patent or a copyright, the general public doesn't really feel the effect and they get away with it.
The system being described has its problems, but it seems to be less reliant on one particular factor that can be manipulated slowly over time.
On the post: Compulsory Licensing Rather Than Artificial Monopolies?
An incentive for public domain
I see at least one benefit to this kind of system: the incentive for companies would be to move IP into the public domain as fast as possible. If you're paying the government a fee/tax for using some bit of publicly-held IP, you'd want to get that off your books as soon as possible. It would completely reverse the current incentive which is to stockpile as much IP as possible.
On the post: Tories Use Keane Song Without Asking Permission
Re: The problem as I see it...
That may be your opinion of how things should work, but it's my understanding that the standard contracts that artists sign don't give them this right. As others have pointed out, as long as the venue pays its dues, they can use any song that is covered by the license in any way they see fit. If an artist wants to exert that level of control over how their songs are used, they shouldn't sign with a label who works with big licensing organizations (like the RIAA).
If the artists want to sell their soul to big music, that's their right.
On the post: What If More Money Makes People Less Inclined To Create?
Re:
I agree with the overall point you're making, but in regards to the specific comment above, I disagree. I would say that an artist has a right to the opportunity to be paid. If I make a bunch of crappy clay ashtrays and try to sell them at the local arts fair, no one has an obligation to buy them i.e. I don't have the right to be paid. It's like the US Constitution which stipulates the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.
I do agree with your last two statements, but I think your first statement exposes the general bias that many people have to justify the second two.
Next >>