6 ms·

20 years is absurdly long. I question whether 5 years of exclusivity is even reasonable, but at least it's a start. But 20 years is at least better that what

by emn13 7y ago

20 years is absurdly long. I question whether 5 years of exclusivity is even reasonable, but at least it's a start. But 20 years is at least better that what we have now, so on the basis of that: it would be great if we could get there. On the other hand, society really should be looking at non-exclusive ways to incentivize creation. Maybe a real copyright could be part of the mix too, but the current model rewards trying to own shared history that is largely valuable because it is shared and previously experienced, and not for the artistic contribution itself. I think a system with a much shorter exlusivity periode - more like 1 year - and then a longer period of e.g. mandatory fixed-price licensing (pick a price per human end user, but you cannot say no to remixes or alter the price for anyone); or citation-based subsidy, or mandatory auctioning (e.g. the copyright owner sets a price, pays X% of that price as a tax, but must sell to the highest bidder over that price, potentially annually at increasing scale?) Frankly, though the details aren't unimportant, perhaps more urgent is the realization that the current system is completely broken; it's not rewarding actually valuable efforts; and it is rewarding actively harmful rent-seeking. Don't forget that the aim is to help society, not to reward artists. I get that 20 years would be nice for artists, but I doubt that "just" 5 would be too little to incentivize creation - let's be honest, humans have been creative since well before the dawn of copyright. Again, we should be looking at incentives with less harmful downsides. It's not just too long; it's incentivizing the wrong stuff; i.e. it's simply not working for news, and probably rewards low-quality spam too much too, and it makes stuff like archiving for histories sake tricky. 20 years plus extensions is waaayy too much; but perhaps it's OK as a stepping stone. Not that any of this is realistic as long as politics is entirely bought and paid for by a small set of vested interests.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
This line of thinking can be expanded beyond copyright. Exclusive access to capital assets are almost by definition rent-seeking. While there is absolutely arguments to be had for the efficiency and effectiveness of such arrangement I think we could do better in capturing the extra rent from those we grant exclusivity. To that end all monopoly grants, such as copyright, but others too, should be tied to a cost. F.ex. one could perhaps find a proxy for the rent value of a particular grant by means of annual auctions. Such a scheme wouldn’t capture the cost of losing a resource as a commons though. See Henry George and geo-libertarianism for more thinking in this direction. But I think there’s some need for innovation to address “commons based peer-production” as Yochai Benkler terms it in The Wealth of Networks).
- emn13 7y ago
  You may be right; but that's such a general perspective that there's a good chance it's wrong in some situations. I think it's a little tricky to overgeneralize like that - although rent-seeking is pretty much by definition harmful; but whether something merely has a high investment cost and a long payback time, or is rentseeking depends on the details. The details for copyright suggest it's rent-seeking, not necessary investment at the current length and with the current exclusivity rules; but not every incentive to produce need result in rent-seeking. The danger with generalizing is that you've made the problem harder to solve, and have more risk of unintended consequences if you do manage to solve the general problem.
dijksterhuis 7y ago
> On the other hand, society really should be looking at non-exclusive ways to incentivize creation. Maybe a real copyright could be part of the mix too, but the current model rewards trying to own shared history that is largely valuable because it is shared and previously experienced, and not for the artistic contribution itself. Woah, hang on there buddy. Without the artistic contribution you wouldn’t have the shared experience or history. So which is more valuable? The chicken or the egg? (Hint: it’s the egg). > I think a system with a much shorter exlusivity periode - more like 1 year - and then a longer period of e.g. mandatory fixed-price licensing (pick a price per human end user, but you cannot say no to remixes or alter the price for anyone); or citation-based subsidy, or mandatory auctioning (e.g. the copyright owner sets a price, pays X% of that price as a tax, but must sell to the highest bidder over that price, potentially annually at increasing scale?) Music is not the same as online adverts, so I’m not entirely sure why you think a similar model should be applied. Also, who defines what constitutes as a “remix”? Does me changing one second of audio count as a remix? I’ve altered the work, I’ve changed it. But it’s 99% the same. Is that a remix or copyright infringement? Also, this type of model assumes EVERYTHING can be measured online. What about vinyl record sales? Cassette sales? How do you get every shop across the entire world to adhere to your model for physical products. Also, what about live gigs? How do you license for x number of end listeners if you can’t count how many end listeners there are? And before you mention ticket sales, what about cover bands that play in pubs and bars where there are no ticket sales? > Don't forget that the aim is to help society, not to reward artists. Errrrrrr. What? No. Copyright law is designed to protect the rightsholders first of all. If I don’t want someone remixing my track, why should society get a say above what I think? It’s my work. Why do they get to choose? > I get that 20 years would be nice for artists, but I doubt that "just" 5 would be too little to incentivize creation - let's be honest, humans have been creative since well before the dawn of copyright. Again, we should be looking at incentives with less harmful downsides. It's not just too long; it's incentivizing the wrong stuff; I’ve been making music for 10 years. In that time I’ve worked jobs to pay the bills and buy music gear. I’ve spent much of my free time on making music. I’ve invested my money and my time over the last 10 years. If I were to “make it big” tomorrow, do you think I’d be happy about half of my investment being thrown to the wolves? Music (and art generally) is not a linear earning process. The majority of people don’t suddenly become big overnight. There’s years (sometimes decades in the case of Gigi Masin) of toil and hardship until you finally get to the point where you actually make some money.

by emn13 7y ago

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

This line of thinking can be expanded beyond copyright. Exclusive access to capital assets are almost by definition rent-seeking. While there is absolutely arguments to be had for the efficiency and effectiveness of such arrangement I think we could do better in capturing the extra rent from those we grant exclusivity. To that end all monopoly grants, such as copyright, but others too, should be tied to a cost. F.ex. one could perhaps find a proxy for the rent value of a particular grant by means of annual auctions. Such a scheme wouldn’t capture the cost of losing a resource as a commons though. See Henry George and geo-libertarianism for more thinking in this direction. But I think there’s some need for innovation to address “commons based peer-production” as Yochai Benkler terms it in The Wealth of Networks).

emn13 7y ago
You may be right; but that's such a general perspective that there's a good chance it's wrong in some situations. I think it's a little tricky to overgeneralize like that - although rent-seeking is pretty much by definition harmful; but whether something merely has a high investment cost and a long payback time, or is rentseeking depends on the details. The details for copyright suggest it's rent-seeking, not necessary investment at the current length and with the current exclusivity rules; but not every incentive to produce need result in rent-seeking. The danger with generalizing is that you've made the problem harder to solve, and have more risk of unintended consequences if you do manage to solve the general problem.

dijksterhuis 7y ago

> On the other hand, society really should be looking at non-exclusive ways to incentivize creation. Maybe a real copyright could be part of the mix too, but the current model rewards trying to own shared history that is largely valuable because it is shared and previously experienced, and not for the artistic contribution itself. Woah, hang on there buddy. Without the artistic contribution you wouldn’t have the shared experience or history. So which is more valuable? The chicken or the egg? (Hint: it’s the egg). > I think a system with a much shorter exlusivity periode - more like 1 year - and then a longer period of e.g. mandatory fixed-price licensing (pick a price per human end user, but you cannot say no to remixes or alter the price for anyone); or citation-based subsidy, or mandatory auctioning (e.g. the copyright owner sets a price, pays X% of that price as a tax, but must sell to the highest bidder over that price, potentially annually at increasing scale?) Music is not the same as online adverts, so I’m not entirely sure why you think a similar model should be applied. Also, who defines what constitutes as a “remix”? Does me changing one second of audio count as a remix? I’ve altered the work, I’ve changed it. But it’s 99% the same. Is that a remix or copyright infringement? Also, this type of model assumes EVERYTHING can be measured online. What about vinyl record sales? Cassette sales? How do you get every shop across the entire world to adhere to your model for physical products. Also, what about live gigs? How do you license for x number of end listeners if you can’t count how many end listeners there are? And before you mention ticket sales, what about cover bands that play in pubs and bars where there are no ticket sales? > Don't forget that the aim is to help society, not to reward artists. Errrrrrr. What? No. Copyright law is designed to protect the rightsholders first of all. If I don’t want someone remixing my track, why should society get a say above what I think? It’s my work. Why do they get to choose? > I get that 20 years would be nice for artists, but I doubt that "just" 5 would be too little to incentivize creation - let's be honest, humans have been creative since well before the dawn of copyright. Again, we should be looking at incentives with less harmful downsides. It's not just too long; it's incentivizing the wrong stuff; I’ve been making music for 10 years. In that time I’ve worked jobs to pay the bills and buy music gear. I’ve spent much of my free time on making music. I’ve invested my money and my time over the last 10 years. If I were to “make it big” tomorrow, do you think I’d be happy about half of my investment being thrown to the wolves? Music (and art generally) is not a linear earning process. The majority of people don’t suddenly become big overnight. There’s years (sometimes decades in the case of Gigi Masin) of toil and hardship until you finally get to the point where you actually make some money.