4 ms·
It is an obvious foregone conclusion that a copyrighted image is going to be used less than one that is in the public domain. Given the administrative hassles
by SagelyGuru 14y ago
It is an obvious foregone conclusion that a copyrighted image is going to be used less than one that is in the public domain.
Given the administrative hassles of getting a permission, not to mention having to make royalties payments, all ensure that this is the case. Surely, to stop people using the image or whatever is the very purpose of copyright in the first place?
Where is the utility and novelty in 'research' like this?
- SilasX 14y agoWhat's more, you can't fairly assess the full effect unless you account for the usable content that exists out there and would not exist but for copyright laws. I know it's popular on sites like this one to act like copyright laws are strictly bad, that no work's creation ever depends on IP laws, etc., but an honest assessment would be that some works require IP to exist, while some do not. So, after creation, copyright hurts Wikipedia's ability to incorporate a work, while some works would not exist but for copyright. Which effect is more significant, and is that a net positive or negative for Wikipedia? Well, that would take real research. You know, the kind this economist didn't do.
- true_religion 14y agoSaying something is a negative doesn't mean that it is in all counts bad. A common argument is that more creativity is restricted by copyright than is enabled by it. That makes copyright a poor trade off.
- SilasX 14y agoHow does that disagree with or add to what I just said?
- true_religion 14y agoI agree with you.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago> Surely, to stop people using the image or whatever is the very purpose of copyright in the first place? I thought the purpose was to financially compensate the original creators of the image or whatever
- slowpoke 14y agoActually, the original intention was governmental censorship.
- greyfade 14y agoAnd the excuse for keeping it is compensation of the original creators. Funny how lies work.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoI've never heard of that; can you give a citation?
- thaumasiotes 14y agoWikipedia has an article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law Best cite from that article to a more scholarly source appears to be to this book (http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Intellectual-Property-Oxford-Texts/dp/0199263396/ http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Intellectual-Property-Oxford-...), in which we can read: """ In most European countries the origins of copyright law lie in the efforts of government to regulate and control the output of printers [...] printing made it possible to have as many exact copies of a work as there were persons who wanted and could afford to buy them. This meant much more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information. While the state and church thought this was to be encouraged in many aspects [...], it also meant that undesirable content -- dissent and criticism of government and established religion, for example -- could circulate too quickly for their comfort. So, all over Europe, government established controls over printing, by requiring printers to have official licenses to be in business and produce books. These licenses typically gave the printer the exclusive right to print particular works for a fixed period of years, enabling him to prevent others from doing so during that period. """ This incarnation of copyright is pretty directly prohibited by the 1A's guarantee of freedom "of the press", but there seems to be agreement that that's what copyright was about when it was established.
- vibrunazo 14y agoYou cannot say "but it's obvious" on a court a law when there's a lawyer in the other side being payed to to point you're wrong. I'm pretty sure the MAFIAA lobbyists will try to make a compelling case why it isn't obvious. So this might become useful when there's an IP reform bill circulating around.
- majormajor 14y ago"a copyrighted image is going to be used less than one that is in the public domain" That wasn't the conclusion. The conclusion was that images are worth more, in terms of updates and visits, to Wikipedia articles than text. This is still a conclusion that will doubtless have its share of people calling it obvious, but it's one I haven't seen quantified like this before. And in the case of baseball players in particular, in theory an image doesn't add nearly as much as their stats and team/championship information.