6 ms·

New study affirms that fewer copyright restrictions benefit the economy

133 points by zoowar 14y ago

fleitz 14y ago
Hardly surprising, the less government interference there is in the market the better the economy does. Look at the industries that are tanking such as finance, manufacturing, education, healthcare, airlines and you'll find no end of regulation and interference.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  I don't think this surprises anyone - the problem is that the people who stand to benefit the most in the short term from copyright regulation staying the way it is are those who have the most political power. The real question is how we can change that situation from the outside.
  - fleitz 14y ago
    Nah that's absolutely the wrong question, and the very question those in power want you to ask. Putting different people in charge won't fix it either. The problem is fundamental to human nature, we're not accustomed to being free. Kings used to fear democracy because they were worried that we'd become free, instead as soon as we were free we started electing new kings. Even in the good ole' US they wanted to elect George Washington dictator for life. You should instead ask, how can I setup my environment so that I am not subject to the will of others... Don't ask the government for your freedom, take it from them.
    - nirvana 14y ago
      You're right and it is typical of HN that you're getting downvoted for making an argument.... but the ironic thing is, I am pro-IP and I agree with you-- government will never give you freedom. (get rid of government- I'm an anarchist- and you'll still have IP, it will just be enforced with contracts.)
      - tisme 14y ago
        > (get rid of government- I'm an anarchist- and you'll still have IP, it will just be enforced with contracts.) That's got to be one of the funniest things on HN ever. So, get gid of the government and you will use contracts at the same time? Contracts can be made between consenting parties and that's all fine and good as long as they both live by the terms. But as soon as one party thinks the other one does not then you will need some mechanism of arbitration, in other words a judicial system. And that sooner or later leads to authority vested in - you've guessed it - a government. You can't be an anarchist and be pro-IP at the same time, the cognitive dissonance is huge.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  For heaven's sake, extension of copyright terms comes at the behest of the publishing industry. Governments would likely welcome the increased economic activity and lower administrative burden of lower copyright protection, but publishers are going to support whatever politicians promise them the most revenue protection. Your various comparative examples are driven by wildly different factors (not least demographic ones) and don't support your argument.
  - luriel 14y ago
    > For heaven's sake, extension of copyright terms comes at the behest of the publishing industry. This is known as regulatory capture, and is what is to be expected once the government starts to grant monopolies: instead of competing and innovating, corporations dedicate themselves to much more lucrative rent-seeking. When the government is the one who decides who can do business and how, it becomes much more lucrative to put your energy in lobbying the government for rules favorable to you, than to put the energy in competing and pleasing consumers. Without patents the only thing that matters is execution: pleasing consumers, with patents all that matters is how you can milk the system and use it to crush your competitors that might have more competitive products.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      You're assuming the government initiates regulation. In reality, merchants and artisans tend to form into guilds and then demand new entrants to that market be licensed. Adam Smith noted this phenomenon in The Wealth of Nations in the famous passage: 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.' A more recent treatment of the subject appears in nplusone magazine, but the site is down just at the moment: http://nplusonemag.com/death-by-degrees http://nplusonemag.com/death-by-degrees Another recent example from NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-... (you'll be happy to know that Clayton recently won her court case, and plans to reopen her business).
- shreyansj 14y ago
  Are you sure that the finance industry is tanking because of too much government regulations? I am not sure if the housing crisis (leading to a poor economy) came about as a result of over-the-top government regulations and interference as per your argument. Would you also say that lack of government regulations/interference (Affordable Care Act) would have improved the healthcare scenario in the long term?
  - nirvana 14y ago
    The housing crisis did, in fact, come from over the top government regulation. Further, the reason health care is so expensive is government regulation. In the 1990s the democrats decided that the banks were not lending to blacks out of racism... later studies that accounted for ability to repay the loans showed this wasn't the case, but at the time the Clinton administration imposed regulations that basically said banks had to loan to people who couldn't repay, and that fannie mae and freddie mac woul buy up those bad loans.... this literally created the housing crisis that blew up 10 years later. It wasn't wall street, it was clinton (and a bush as well, for keeping interest rates artificially low). Milton Friedman found that over the past 100 years government regulations drove up health care costs 26 fold and reduced availability. So that $100,000 operation that would bankrupt you now would only cost $5,000 without government regulation-- you could put it on a credit card. The ACA is destroying the health care industry and will dramatically make the situation much worse. But most people are never told these things. They are told political lies spread via propaganda that blames Wall Street (or "Glass Steegall" - I can't tell you how many times peple have evoked that phrase, people who obviously know nothing about what that law did). Most people are ignorant and believe propaganda, and that makes them easier to control, which is what politicians like to do.
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Further, the reason health care is so expensive is government regulation. No, healthcare is expensive because there are multiple layers of middlemen, each trying to earn an increasing amount of profit, and because healthcare treatments are performed without regard to efficacy by profit-motivated private medical service providers. Healthcare costs have increased far more rapidly than the increase in healthcare legislation; indeed, the only metric that has increased alongside costs is profits earned by HMOs and other insurers. By the way, "profits" is just the net revenue the insurers earn, after deducting from income the insane, multi-million dollar yearly bonuses they pay to the C-suite officers and board members. If government were the driving force behind healthcare increases, the rest of the world would spend significantly greater sums of their GDP on healthcare than we do, yet they spend far less--and have comparatively better results for the amounts they do spend. The worst thing to happen to healthcare wasn't government; it was the corporatization of health care.
ericdykstra 14y ago
I'd like to see a quantitative study on the effects of ridiculous patent laws. Most HNers know that US patent law, and the entire patent system here is broken, but a quantitative study might be able to convince people who otherwise wouldn't pay any attention to the issue to give it some thought.
- nirvana 14y ago
  The US Patent law, and the "entire patent system" are not broken. A lot of very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants along these lines, but when pressed for specifics they generally cannot back them up (eg: they haven't even read the patents in question, or don't know the difference between a utility patent and a design patent, or even what design or utility patents cover.) In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent system who understood what patents are. Anti-IP propaganda claiming that the patent system is "doing damage" by measuring the enforcement of patents against people will be good for ideological arguments but actually be pointless. Because it comes from that lack of understanding of the benefit patents provide. Patents incentivize the publication of inventions so that others, who may not have been up to speed on the state of the art, can come up to speed and start competing. They also disincentivize the need to obfuscate or protect your inventions using physical or technological means, which improves repairability and in fact, enabled the entire standard-component industrial sector we have that has allowed integrated circuits to be such a big part of our lives. Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. And like Global Warming and "Quantitative Easing" and other nonsensical, anti-scientific, ideological positions, the proponents, rather than make or defend logical arguments for their positions, tend to use signaling like "most HNers know the US Patent law... is broken". You just presume your conclusion, and a lot of others do as well, which is why they can't make arguments and instead are forced to downvote or shout down those who make counter arguments. Since having a good argument (with well researched citations) is not a defense against downvotes on HN, your claim becomes self fulfilling-- anyone who might challenge the ideology of anti-IP with facts, logic or reason, is downvoted so you don't have to see them. Which, ironically, is why I'm posting this here. Becuase I really, really, hate to see the single mindedness, and cheering that groupthink. So, if you want to claim that the system is broken, feel free to make an argument, and feel free to account for the factors I briefly touched on.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Meanwhile, creativity—far from being stifled without more copyright laws on the books—is currently thriving. There’s been a market increase in the amount of movies, music, and books produced over the last decade, as this comprehensive study done by CCIA and Techdirt’s Mike Masnick shows. That's a poor argument for loosening copyright restrictions - it makes it seem as if the status quo is OK. I personally think existing copyright terms need to be significantly shortened, and that a legal challenge might succeed on the basis that Congress is empowered to grant copyrights for 'a limited time.' Insofar as copyright terms exceed the average human lifetime, they are effectively endless for all but the longest-lived members of society, promoting a creative gerontocracy.
- nirvana 14y ago
  Technological advancement (eg: music software, cheap HD cameras, etc.) and significantly better distribution platforms (eg: the internet) can account for an increase in production... they need to account for that, otherwise its kinda nonsensical to say what they say. But then, it seems this is ideologically driven from the beginning. It is much like the "studies" in the 1990s, published by microsoft (and you see them now from google) that say Microsoft (or android) is winning. (despite, for instance, Samsung never giving sales details, and when they were forced to by the recent lawsuit, it turned out they were pitiful... so you have press claiming huge sales to further and ideological position that "Android is winning" (and thus "open" works, even though Android is no more open than iOS) using essentially made up data and then other sources repeat it to the point where large numbers of (frankly, uninformed) people believe it. This is how propaganda works.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    ...even though Android is no more open than iOS... Wait a minute. We all know from reading your comments on which side of the Apple/Google divide you fall, but how on earth do you come to that conclusion? Can you download and redistribute the complete source code to iOS?
btn 14y ago
The article is very light on details about how the "study" arrived at their conclusions and figures (I hesitate to call it a study, because it didn't actually test any hypotheses). The report is published by a group that lobbies for "copyright reform that enables fair access to content", with a membership is predominantly tertiary institutes. They argue that a number of industries are dependent on some "limitations and exceptions" to copyright law. These industries include: research and education, publishing, broadcasting, film, music, ISPs, and the performing arts. The industries currently employ some people, make some money, and contribute some amount to GDP. Their extend of this dependence on copyright limitations is not quantified by thre report and is quite vague (focussing mainly on quotation, citation, and critique). It concludes that if Australia implements "better crafted limitations and exceptions", these industries can increase their job/income/GDP metrics, and reduce the amount paid as licensees of copyright protected works to foreign companies.
luriel 14y ago
There has been plenty of evidence about how intellectual property is actually counter productive and hinders innovation for a long time: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... And is not surprising when you realize that it is basically the government going around granting monopolies to private entities, and what incentives that creates (the main incentive is to expand the monopoly power rather than to create and innovate, innovation is contrary to monopolies).
pitchups 14y ago
Also this TED talk by Johanna Blakley, shows how the lack of copyright and patent protection in the fashion industry actually works to benefit both innovation and sales: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...
snowwrestler 14y ago
No surprise that reducing copyright protections drives economic growth. It acts like a reduction in cost for the raw material of other creative and distribution businesses. What is not as clear is the impact on long-term innovation--in particular the very capital-intensive kind. The Lord of the Rings movies would have been less expensive to make if they did not have to pay for the rights to use the story and characters. But would the studio have given the green light to such an expensive shoot if they had a lower expectation of return?
- jeffool 14y ago
  Why should they expect a lower return? While I understand that value in being unique, I can't imagine a high quality production of a public work would be damaged that much by low quality productions of a similar work unless it's just profanely overdone. And in that case, why would they have sunk that much money into it? I mean, every time a zombie film comes out, three cheaper ones come straight to video. The new Dawn of the Dead did fine. And even in copyright, Snakes on a Train was in video stores three days before Snakes on a Plane came to theaters! Sure, they may have had to think of a unique name to identify their product to fans (even just "Peter Jackson's LotR",) but I'm not convinced that they would've suffered, had lower quality renditions been widely available. It may have made them stand out more.
neilc 14y ago
The methodology of this report is a joke. For example, to come up with the $600 million figure, they say: "We simulated an increase in productivity growth in the exceptions using industries of just one one-hundredth of its otherwise experienced growth in the three years from 2007 through 2010 – a very conservative estimate of additional growth." i.e., they pulled 1% (net) increase in growth out of the air, and then simply calculate the economic benefits of that hypothetical increased growth. (Per http://www.digital.org.au/media/166 http://www.digital.org.au/media/166)
jbaiter 14y ago
This is a point that has also been made by German historian Eckhard Höffner[1]. He claims that one of the main reasons for Germany's rise as an industrial power during the 19th century was its very lax copyright regulations that allowed a rapid distribution of pirate prints of publications to every corner of Germany, thus creating a very large reading public that would later flock to universities and engineering schools and fuel Germany's innovative economy. So far there hasn't been an English translation, although Ars Technica, Wired and the English edition of the Spiegel carried good reviews/summaries[2][3][4] [1] Eckhard Höffner: Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts. Verlag Europäische Wirtschaft, 2010, ISBN 978-3930893164 (2 Tomes). [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/drool-britannia-did-weak-copyright-laws-help-germany-outpace-the-united-kingdom/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/drool-britannia-d... [3] http://www.wired.com/business/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/all/ http://www.wired.com/business/2010/08/copyright-germany-brit... [4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-l...

133 points by zoowar 14y ago

Hardly surprising, the less government interference there is in the market the better the economy does. Look at the industries that are tanking such as finance, manufacturing, education, healthcare, airlines and you'll find no end of regulation and interference.

w1ntermute 14y ago
I don't think this surprises anyone - the problem is that the people who stand to benefit the most in the short term from copyright regulation staying the way it is are those who have the most political power. The real question is how we can change that situation from the outside.
- fleitz 14y ago
  Nah that's absolutely the wrong question, and the very question those in power want you to ask. Putting different people in charge won't fix it either. The problem is fundamental to human nature, we're not accustomed to being free. Kings used to fear democracy because they were worried that we'd become free, instead as soon as we were free we started electing new kings. Even in the good ole' US they wanted to elect George Washington dictator for life. You should instead ask, how can I setup my environment so that I am not subject to the will of others... Don't ask the government for your freedom, take it from them.
  - nirvana 14y ago
    You're right and it is typical of HN that you're getting downvoted for making an argument.... but the ironic thing is, I am pro-IP and I agree with you-- government will never give you freedom. (get rid of government- I'm an anarchist- and you'll still have IP, it will just be enforced with contracts.)
    - tisme 14y ago
      > (get rid of government- I'm an anarchist- and you'll still have IP, it will just be enforced with contracts.) That's got to be one of the funniest things on HN ever. So, get gid of the government and you will use contracts at the same time? Contracts can be made between consenting parties and that's all fine and good as long as they both live by the terms. But as soon as one party thinks the other one does not then you will need some mechanism of arbitration, in other words a judicial system. And that sooner or later leads to authority vested in - you've guessed it - a government. You can't be an anarchist and be pro-IP at the same time, the cognitive dissonance is huge.
anigbrowl 14y ago
For heaven's sake, extension of copyright terms comes at the behest of the publishing industry. Governments would likely welcome the increased economic activity and lower administrative burden of lower copyright protection, but publishers are going to support whatever politicians promise them the most revenue protection. Your various comparative examples are driven by wildly different factors (not least demographic ones) and don't support your argument.
- luriel 14y ago
  > For heaven's sake, extension of copyright terms comes at the behest of the publishing industry. This is known as regulatory capture, and is what is to be expected once the government starts to grant monopolies: instead of competing and innovating, corporations dedicate themselves to much more lucrative rent-seeking. When the government is the one who decides who can do business and how, it becomes much more lucrative to put your energy in lobbying the government for rules favorable to you, than to put the energy in competing and pleasing consumers. Without patents the only thing that matters is execution: pleasing consumers, with patents all that matters is how you can milk the system and use it to crush your competitors that might have more competitive products.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    You're assuming the government initiates regulation. In reality, merchants and artisans tend to form into guilds and then demand new entrants to that market be licensed. Adam Smith noted this phenomenon in The Wealth of Nations in the famous passage: 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.' A more recent treatment of the subject appears in nplusone magazine, but the site is down just at the moment: http://nplusonemag.com/death-by-degrees http://nplusonemag.com/death-by-degrees Another recent example from NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-... (you'll be happy to know that Clayton recently won her court case, and plans to reopen her business).
shreyansj 14y ago
Are you sure that the finance industry is tanking because of too much government regulations? I am not sure if the housing crisis (leading to a poor economy) came about as a result of over-the-top government regulations and interference as per your argument. Would you also say that lack of government regulations/interference (Affordable Care Act) would have improved the healthcare scenario in the long term?
- nirvana 14y ago
  The housing crisis did, in fact, come from over the top government regulation. Further, the reason health care is so expensive is government regulation. In the 1990s the democrats decided that the banks were not lending to blacks out of racism... later studies that accounted for ability to repay the loans showed this wasn't the case, but at the time the Clinton administration imposed regulations that basically said banks had to loan to people who couldn't repay, and that fannie mae and freddie mac woul buy up those bad loans.... this literally created the housing crisis that blew up 10 years later. It wasn't wall street, it was clinton (and a bush as well, for keeping interest rates artificially low). Milton Friedman found that over the past 100 years government regulations drove up health care costs 26 fold and reduced availability. So that $100,000 operation that would bankrupt you now would only cost $5,000 without government regulation-- you could put it on a credit card. The ACA is destroying the health care industry and will dramatically make the situation much worse. But most people are never told these things. They are told political lies spread via propaganda that blames Wall Street (or "Glass Steegall" - I can't tell you how many times peple have evoked that phrase, people who obviously know nothing about what that law did). Most people are ignorant and believe propaganda, and that makes them easier to control, which is what politicians like to do.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Further, the reason health care is so expensive is government regulation. No, healthcare is expensive because there are multiple layers of middlemen, each trying to earn an increasing amount of profit, and because healthcare treatments are performed without regard to efficacy by profit-motivated private medical service providers. Healthcare costs have increased far more rapidly than the increase in healthcare legislation; indeed, the only metric that has increased alongside costs is profits earned by HMOs and other insurers. By the way, "profits" is just the net revenue the insurers earn, after deducting from income the insane, multi-million dollar yearly bonuses they pay to the C-suite officers and board members. If government were the driving force behind healthcare increases, the rest of the world would spend significantly greater sums of their GDP on healthcare than we do, yet they spend far less--and have comparatively better results for the amounts they do spend. The worst thing to happen to healthcare wasn't government; it was the corporatization of health care.

ericdykstra 14y ago

I'd like to see a quantitative study on the effects of ridiculous patent laws. Most HNers know that US patent law, and the entire patent system here is broken, but a quantitative study might be able to convince people who otherwise wouldn't pay any attention to the issue to give it some thought.

nirvana 14y ago
The US Patent law, and the "entire patent system" are not broken. A lot of very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants along these lines, but when pressed for specifics they generally cannot back them up (eg: they haven't even read the patents in question, or don't know the difference between a utility patent and a design patent, or even what design or utility patents cover.) In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent system who understood what patents are. Anti-IP propaganda claiming that the patent system is "doing damage" by measuring the enforcement of patents against people will be good for ideological arguments but actually be pointless. Because it comes from that lack of understanding of the benefit patents provide. Patents incentivize the publication of inventions so that others, who may not have been up to speed on the state of the art, can come up to speed and start competing. They also disincentivize the need to obfuscate or protect your inventions using physical or technological means, which improves repairability and in fact, enabled the entire standard-component industrial sector we have that has allowed integrated circuits to be such a big part of our lives. Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. And like Global Warming and "Quantitative Easing" and other nonsensical, anti-scientific, ideological positions, the proponents, rather than make or defend logical arguments for their positions, tend to use signaling like "most HNers know the US Patent law... is broken". You just presume your conclusion, and a lot of others do as well, which is why they can't make arguments and instead are forced to downvote or shout down those who make counter arguments. Since having a good argument (with well researched citations) is not a defense against downvotes on HN, your claim becomes self fulfilling-- anyone who might challenge the ideology of anti-IP with facts, logic or reason, is downvoted so you don't have to see them. Which, ironically, is why I'm posting this here. Becuase I really, really, hate to see the single mindedness, and cheering that groupthink. So, if you want to claim that the system is broken, feel free to make an argument, and feel free to account for the factors I briefly touched on.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Meanwhile, creativity—far from being stifled without more copyright laws on the books—is currently thriving. There’s been a market increase in the amount of movies, music, and books produced over the last decade, as this comprehensive study done by CCIA and Techdirt’s Mike Masnick shows. That's a poor argument for loosening copyright restrictions - it makes it seem as if the status quo is OK. I personally think existing copyright terms need to be significantly shortened, and that a legal challenge might succeed on the basis that Congress is empowered to grant copyrights for 'a limited time.' Insofar as copyright terms exceed the average human lifetime, they are effectively endless for all but the longest-lived members of society, promoting a creative gerontocracy.

nirvana 14y ago
Technological advancement (eg: music software, cheap HD cameras, etc.) and significantly better distribution platforms (eg: the internet) can account for an increase in production... they need to account for that, otherwise its kinda nonsensical to say what they say. But then, it seems this is ideologically driven from the beginning. It is much like the "studies" in the 1990s, published by microsoft (and you see them now from google) that say Microsoft (or android) is winning. (despite, for instance, Samsung never giving sales details, and when they were forced to by the recent lawsuit, it turned out they were pitiful... so you have press claiming huge sales to further and ideological position that "Android is winning" (and thus "open" works, even though Android is no more open than iOS) using essentially made up data and then other sources repeat it to the point where large numbers of (frankly, uninformed) people believe it. This is how propaganda works.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  ...even though Android is no more open than iOS... Wait a minute. We all know from reading your comments on which side of the Apple/Google divide you fall, but how on earth do you come to that conclusion? Can you download and redistribute the complete source code to iOS?

btn 14y ago

The article is very light on details about how the "study" arrived at their conclusions and figures (I hesitate to call it a study, because it didn't actually test any hypotheses). The report is published by a group that lobbies for "copyright reform that enables fair access to content", with a membership is predominantly tertiary institutes. They argue that a number of industries are dependent on some "limitations and exceptions" to copyright law. These industries include: research and education, publishing, broadcasting, film, music, ISPs, and the performing arts. The industries currently employ some people, make some money, and contribute some amount to GDP. Their extend of this dependence on copyright limitations is not quantified by thre report and is quite vague (focussing mainly on quotation, citation, and critique). It concludes that if Australia implements "better crafted limitations and exceptions", these industries can increase their job/income/GDP metrics, and reduce the amount paid as licensees of copyright protected works to foreign companies.

luriel 14y ago

There has been plenty of evidence about how intellectual property is actually counter productive and hinders innovation for a long time: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... And is not surprising when you realize that it is basically the government going around granting monopolies to private entities, and what incentives that creates (the main incentive is to expand the monopoly power rather than to create and innovate, innovation is contrary to monopolies).

pitchups 14y ago

Also this TED talk by Johanna Blakley, shows how the lack of copyright and patent protection in the fashion industry actually works to benefit both innovation and sales: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

snowwrestler 14y ago

No surprise that reducing copyright protections drives economic growth. It acts like a reduction in cost for the raw material of other creative and distribution businesses. What is not as clear is the impact on long-term innovation--in particular the very capital-intensive kind. The Lord of the Rings movies would have been less expensive to make if they did not have to pay for the rights to use the story and characters. But would the studio have given the green light to such an expensive shoot if they had a lower expectation of return?

jeffool 14y ago
Why should they expect a lower return? While I understand that value in being unique, I can't imagine a high quality production of a public work would be damaged that much by low quality productions of a similar work unless it's just profanely overdone. And in that case, why would they have sunk that much money into it? I mean, every time a zombie film comes out, three cheaper ones come straight to video. The new Dawn of the Dead did fine. And even in copyright, Snakes on a Train was in video stores three days before Snakes on a Plane came to theaters! Sure, they may have had to think of a unique name to identify their product to fans (even just "Peter Jackson's LotR",) but I'm not convinced that they would've suffered, had lower quality renditions been widely available. It may have made them stand out more.

neilc 14y ago

The methodology of this report is a joke. For example, to come up with the $600 million figure, they say: "We simulated an increase in productivity growth in the exceptions using industries of just one one-hundredth of its otherwise experienced growth in the three years from 2007 through 2010 – a very conservative estimate of additional growth." i.e., they pulled 1% (net) increase in growth out of the air, and then simply calculate the economic benefits of that hypothetical increased growth. (Per http://www.digital.org.au/media/166 http://www.digital.org.au/media/166)

jbaiter 14y ago

This is a point that has also been made by German historian Eckhard Höffner[1]. He claims that one of the main reasons for Germany's rise as an industrial power during the 19th century was its very lax copyright regulations that allowed a rapid distribution of pirate prints of publications to every corner of Germany, thus creating a very large reading public that would later flock to universities and engineering schools and fuel Germany's innovative economy. So far there hasn't been an English translation, although Ars Technica, Wired and the English edition of the Spiegel carried good reviews/summaries[2][3][4] [1] Eckhard Höffner: Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts. Verlag Europäische Wirtschaft, 2010, ISBN 978-3930893164 (2 Tomes). [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/drool-britannia-did-weak-copyright-laws-help-germany-outpace-the-united-kingdom/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/drool-britannia-d... [3] http://www.wired.com/business/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/all/ http://www.wired.com/business/2010/08/copyright-germany-brit... [4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-l...