27 ms·
Just yesterday, I ran some calculations based on a different assumption, just on raw economics. It goes like this: 1) Suppose that "intellectual property" (IP)
by ableal 17y ago
Just yesterday, I ran some calculations based on a different assumption, just on raw economics. It goes like this:
1) Suppose that "intellectual property" (IP) is taxed, like real estate. Say at a T = 1% rate, to keep it simple. This pays for the property protection service the state provides.
2) But the holder does not actually pay tax. He just accumulates back payments to the state, at an interest rate R per year.
3) When the state is owed 100% of the value, the IP reverts to the public domain.
This has the advantage that the property value does not matter - it can be 1, 100, 100k; nothing to haggle there. It is just assumed to be constant for the period considered.
Run your own calculations. Mine were that with a T=1% tax rate, and a R=5% interest rate on unpaid tax, you get 37 years. (26 years for R=10%, 47 years for R=3%.)
P.S.
I got curious, and just checked with a lower tax rate T=0.5%. R seems to dominate T. Here is a little table:
R=3% R=5% R=10%
T=0.5% 66 50 32
T= 1% 47 37 26
- anamax 17y agoLessig had a simpler idea. The first n years of copyright protection are free, for a modest n (say 10). After that, the copyright owner can get extended protection by paying minimal fee every so often, say $1 every 5 years. Lessig's numbers were almost certainly different.
- kmak 17y agoI think there's an idea where copyright extension fee grows exponentially, so free for first N, $1 for the next N, $10 for the next N.. And after a few N's, it'll either be economically infeasible, or you can still keep them, but it'll be worth it for you (Mickey is worth quite a bit after all these years). I think Lessig's idea was basically get the "dead" copyright properties into the public domain, where you can't get permission because you don't know who owns things.
- anamax 17y ago> I think there's an idea where copyright extension fee grows exponentially, so free for first N, $1 for the next N, $10 for the next N.. There are lots of ideas. However, few of them can be realized. If we can't enact Lessig's plan, what makes you think that an exponential fee schedule has any chance? > but it'll be worth it for you (Mickey is worth quite a bit after all these years). "Micky" isn't copyrighted. Mickey is trademarked. Things where Mickey makes an appearance are copyrighted. (Trademark is what keeps you from producing new works containing Mickey. Copyright keeps you from copying existing works and deriving new works from said existing works. For example, porn mickey need not have copyright problems.) There are literally millions of such things. Do you really think that applying an exponential fee to them has a chance?
- kmak 17y agoSteamboat Willie is still not in the public domain. I'm just stating an interesting plan, not that it is realistic. Please do not make unnecessary assumptions.
- anamax 17y ago> Steamboat Willie is still not in the public domain. That's true, but misses the point. Even if Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, Mickey Mouse doesn't enter the public domain. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain - I can sell new Sherlock Holmes stories. Mickey Mouse is protected by trademark, so I can't sell a new Mickey Mouse story, no matter how many Mickey Mouse stories have gone off-copyright.
- bediger 17y agoSome questions about the copyright status of Sherlock Holmes stories still exists: http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=sherlock+holmes&edition=techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=sherlock+holmes&edi... If I had any literary talent, I'd think twice about writing any Sherlock Holmes sequels, etc, althought I cheerfully bought, read and enjoyed "Shadows over Baker Street", a mashup of Sherlock Holmes, and HP Lovecraft's Elder Gods. Surely this illustrates that "chilling effect" on free speech that copyright has, eh?