7 ms·

No. That would be discriminatory. Here's why: life expectancy matters. An author exploits their copyright by assigning rights and options under it. The price

No. That would be discriminatory. Here's why: life expectancy matters. An author exploits their copyright by assigning rights and options under it. The price is based on the discounted future cashflows possible from the licensing project in question. If the scope of "future" is limited solely to the lifetime of the author, then the socioeconomic inequities that cause, say, race to be a significant factor in life expectancy will be directly responsible for enforcing that distinction further. Or more simply, it causes the same novel written by a rich young white man to receive a better licensing deal than if it were written by a poor old black man. This may of course already be the case, but any such rule would exacerbate matters. Today, that extra 70 year buffer helps at least to throw the present-value discounting beyond the foreseeable future.

fiatmoney 12y ago
Wait, are you claiming to believe that the change in aggregate economic outcomes driven by a change in copyright assignment is enough to measurably affect aggregate life expectancy? Besides which, the average member of the population will spend far more money on creative works than they will receive in revenue on them; it would be to their benefit to have the price of creative works drop.
- nkurz 12y ago
  No, the claim would be that it's discriminatory for a work by a person with a statistically short life expectancy to have less market value than a person with greater. Possibly true, but it's an interesting for of poetic justice for all works upcoming young black females to be inherently more valuable than than yet another bestselling sequel by an established octogenarian white male.[1] As for the price of creative works, a common fear is that if copyright protection was weaker, artists might no longer feel properly incentivized to make creative works, and an uncreated work is not isn't available at any price. I have trouble sharing this fear, although the impact would probably depend on your taste in art. [1] A slight poetic license, as statistically American black females have slightly greater life expectancy at every age than do American white males: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_07.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_07.pdf
  - baddox 12y ago
    If a person with a shorter life expectancy values a lifelong copyright less than a person with a longer life expectancy, presumably that means the people value being able to pass their copyright onto kin or other beneficiaries (like charity) after their death. But what about people with no kin or beneficiaries, or people who don't want to pass on their earthly possessions after they die? They will also be discriminated against, by this logic.
    - fineline 12y ago
      To decline an opportunity (choosing to bequeath to nobody) is not the same as to be denied that same opportunity. The latter could be discrimination, the former case could not, as who would be the discriminator?
      - baddox 12y ago
        If any denial of opportunity counts as discrimination, then why discriminate against everyone who didn't write the book by prohibiting them from making copies? Copyright is inherently discriminatory, and any specific implementation of a copyright system will discriminate in certain ways against certain people.
  - watwut 12y ago
    What about established octogenarian black female vs upcoming white straight young male?
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  I don't think I agree with Opinatus, but they're definitely not claiming that.
baddox 12y ago
How would you arrange a copyright system that would not be discriminatory? For example, if you allow copyrights to be passed on to kin or other beneficiaries after death, you discriminate against people with no family or close friends. If you only let copyrights last a year, you discriminate against people who have less than a year to live, as well as young people who would prefer to have the monopoly for much longer.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  As the commercial rights of copyrights are transferrable, both your examples are not really valid - people with no family nor close friends, as well as those with less than a year to live can sell their rights to whomever and spend those resources as they wish while they can. This isn't discriminatory, as the value of the rights would be the same for author with/without family, and for the author with 6 months to live vs 60 years expected lifespan.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I doubt that the value of knowing you will pass on wealth to your children when you die is the same as just selling the copyright to a third party while you're still alive. I thought that was the point of the original argument.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Nice rhetoric. Unfortunately, the future value of a 70 year income stream is effectively nil. You can look at this in terms of the present values of annuities or perpetuities. In the case of a perpetuity (a constant income stream forever), the present value is expressed as: C/r Where C is the period cash flow, and r is the nominal rate of interest expressed as a decimal fraction, e.g., a 5% interest rate is given as 0.05. The value for any period of the perpetuity is C/(1+r)^n Where n is the period. Assuming a $1000 constant payment stream, the present value of the 70th payment is only $32.86. Double that and you're down to $1.08 as present value of a $1000 future payment. At 14 years, you're seeing $505 in present value, at 28 years, $255. This is sensitive to the interest (discount) rate, where the present value falls as interest rises. A 10% nominal interest rate gives you a $263 value for 14 years, $69 at 28, $1.27 at 70, and $0.001 at 140 years. At a 2% interest rate, the values are $758, $574, $250, and $62, respectively. So while your argument does make a case for a fixed term of copyright, it doesn't pass muster for an extensive duration. Nor, more compellingly, does it allow for the retroactive extension of copyright duration as has been the case for the Doyle estate. Sir Arthur didn't write his works, published between 1887 and 1927, with any reasonable expectation that his heirs or corporate designates would be continuing to profit by them in 2014. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perpetuity.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perpetuity.asp
- inopinatus 12y ago
  Modeling IP DCF as a perpetuity is like the physicist who assumes perfectly smooth surfaces. Fine for Finance 101, not so much in the real world of lumpy cashflows. Notwithstanding which, those numbers actually indicate that even after 70 years there's a significant present value in the return. You wrote: "Assuming a $1000 constant payment stream, the present value of the 70th payment is only $32.86." I would write that: "Assuming a $1000 constant payment stream, the present value of the 70th payment is still as high as $32.86". And they'll be even better than that since very-long-term compound average discount rates are low, closer to 3% iirc. Instead, try modelling an annuity (yes, that's as bogus as the perpetuity, but bear with it) for two periods: 45 years and 52 years. At 3%, I make that a 5.5% better deal for the extra seven years of viability. I won't bore everyone with the math. Note also, I'm not arguing for the current system; merely pointing out that (irrespective of other complications) setting IP rights as coterminous with the originator is inequitable.
Crito 12y ago
This is flat out absurd. By your logic, any aspect of society which benefits those which live longer, which is nearly every aspect of society, is discriminatory. Those with leukemia will tend to experience less of life than those without; does that mean that society is discriminating against those with leukemia? No; it means that leukemia is a bitch. Society is not at fault there, leukemia is.

fiatmoney 12y ago

Wait, are you claiming to believe that the change in aggregate economic outcomes driven by a change in copyright assignment is enough to measurably affect aggregate life expectancy? Besides which, the average member of the population will spend far more money on creative works than they will receive in revenue on them; it would be to their benefit to have the price of creative works drop.

nkurz 12y ago
No, the claim would be that it's discriminatory for a work by a person with a statistically short life expectancy to have less market value than a person with greater. Possibly true, but it's an interesting for of poetic justice for all works upcoming young black females to be inherently more valuable than than yet another bestselling sequel by an established octogenarian white male.[1] As for the price of creative works, a common fear is that if copyright protection was weaker, artists might no longer feel properly incentivized to make creative works, and an uncreated work is not isn't available at any price. I have trouble sharing this fear, although the impact would probably depend on your taste in art. [1] A slight poetic license, as statistically American black females have slightly greater life expectancy at every age than do American white males: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_07.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_07.pdf
- baddox 12y ago
  If a person with a shorter life expectancy values a lifelong copyright less than a person with a longer life expectancy, presumably that means the people value being able to pass their copyright onto kin or other beneficiaries (like charity) after their death. But what about people with no kin or beneficiaries, or people who don't want to pass on their earthly possessions after they die? They will also be discriminated against, by this logic.
  - fineline 12y ago
    To decline an opportunity (choosing to bequeath to nobody) is not the same as to be denied that same opportunity. The latter could be discrimination, the former case could not, as who would be the discriminator?
    - baddox 12y ago
      If any denial of opportunity counts as discrimination, then why discriminate against everyone who didn't write the book by prohibiting them from making copies? Copyright is inherently discriminatory, and any specific implementation of a copyright system will discriminate in certain ways against certain people.
- watwut 12y ago
  What about established octogenarian black female vs upcoming white straight young male?
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
I don't think I agree with Opinatus, but they're definitely not claiming that.

baddox 12y ago

How would you arrange a copyright system that would not be discriminatory? For example, if you allow copyrights to be passed on to kin or other beneficiaries after death, you discriminate against people with no family or close friends. If you only let copyrights last a year, you discriminate against people who have less than a year to live, as well as young people who would prefer to have the monopoly for much longer.

PeterisP 12y ago
As the commercial rights of copyrights are transferrable, both your examples are not really valid - people with no family nor close friends, as well as those with less than a year to live can sell their rights to whomever and spend those resources as they wish while they can. This isn't discriminatory, as the value of the rights would be the same for author with/without family, and for the author with 6 months to live vs 60 years expected lifespan.
- baddox 12y ago
  I doubt that the value of knowing you will pass on wealth to your children when you die is the same as just selling the copyright to a third party while you're still alive. I thought that was the point of the original argument.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Nice rhetoric. Unfortunately, the future value of a 70 year income stream is effectively nil. You can look at this in terms of the present values of annuities or perpetuities. In the case of a perpetuity (a constant income stream forever), the present value is expressed as: C/r Where C is the period cash flow, and r is the nominal rate of interest expressed as a decimal fraction, e.g., a 5% interest rate is given as 0.05. The value for any period of the perpetuity is C/(1+r)^n Where n is the period. Assuming a $1000 constant payment stream, the present value of the 70th payment is only $32.86. Double that and you're down to $1.08 as present value of a $1000 future payment. At 14 years, you're seeing $505 in present value, at 28 years, $255. This is sensitive to the interest (discount) rate, where the present value falls as interest rises. A 10% nominal interest rate gives you a $263 value for 14 years, $69 at 28, $1.27 at 70, and $0.001 at 140 years. At a 2% interest rate, the values are $758, $574, $250, and $62, respectively. So while your argument does make a case for a fixed term of copyright, it doesn't pass muster for an extensive duration. Nor, more compellingly, does it allow for the retroactive extension of copyright duration as has been the case for the Doyle estate. Sir Arthur didn't write his works, published between 1887 and 1927, with any reasonable expectation that his heirs or corporate designates would be continuing to profit by them in 2014. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perpetuity.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perpetuity.asp

inopinatus 12y ago
Modeling IP DCF as a perpetuity is like the physicist who assumes perfectly smooth surfaces. Fine for Finance 101, not so much in the real world of lumpy cashflows. Notwithstanding which, those numbers actually indicate that even after 70 years there's a significant present value in the return. You wrote: "Assuming a $1000 constant payment stream, the present value of the 70th payment is only $32.86." I would write that: "Assuming a $1000 constant payment stream, the present value of the 70th payment is still as high as $32.86". And they'll be even better than that since very-long-term compound average discount rates are low, closer to 3% iirc. Instead, try modelling an annuity (yes, that's as bogus as the perpetuity, but bear with it) for two periods: 45 years and 52 years. At 3%, I make that a 5.5% better deal for the extra seven years of viability. I won't bore everyone with the math. Note also, I'm not arguing for the current system; merely pointing out that (irrespective of other complications) setting IP rights as coterminous with the originator is inequitable.

Crito 12y ago

This is flat out absurd. By your logic, any aspect of society which benefits those which live longer, which is nearly every aspect of society, is discriminatory. Those with leukemia will tend to experience less of life than those without; does that mean that society is discriminating against those with leukemia? No; it means that leukemia is a bitch. Society is not at fault there, leukemia is.