2 ms·

Whilst I agree that the DCE could be a disaster if applied to patents, I think they are very explicitly aiming that at the copyright problem, which is very diff

by swombat 15y ago

Whilst I agree that the DCE could be a disaster if applied to patents, I think they are very explicitly aiming that at the copyright problem, which is very different. I also don't think the DCE can or should avoid aiming to make a profit. On the contrary, the only way to get a decent DCE in place will be to have multiple players competing in the space, which seems to be both the Hargreaves report's and the government's view. Effectively, what we're talking about is a kind of iTunes-like marketplace for automated, mass licencing of copyrighted works, to make the process straightforward, transparent, predictable, etc. I don't see how preventing those from making a profit would help.

tomelders 15y ago
If the desired effect a a DCE actually manifest themselves, it would be better to keep it non profit and state run since any operating costs would be offset by the increased productivity in the wider economy. And if the mandate was issued by the public, based on frequent public consultation, it would essentially future proof itself. That's not to say it shouldn't generate a lot of money, it easily could. I imagine a world where a DCE becomes so successful that it generates enough money to create new and advanced institutions for the arts and sciences, enabling Britain to invest heavily in its long term future. However, if it were private, that revenue would not be put to such a good use, and the public would have no say in how the DCE operated. Any attempts to correct any inefficiencies or inequalities in the DCE would meet fierce legal opposition. We don't know what the landscape will look like in 20, 30, 50 or a hundred years. Why saddle ourselves with an immutable, or near-immutable DCE?