AfterDawn: Tech news

Research shows 14 year copyright term optimal

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 16 Jul 2007 10:56 User comments (13)

Research shows 14 year copyright term optimal In a paper delivered to the 2007 SERCI Congress in Berlin last week titled Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright, Rufus Pollock concludes that the optimal period for copyright is 14 years.
Pollock, a graduate student in Economics at Cambridge, has been researching intellectual property extensively over the last three years while working toward his PhD.

In order to determine the optimal copyright period Pollock started from the original premise of intellectual property laws, which means that the optimal period would be produce the maximum number of creative works. He then attempts to quantify factors such as the cost of production, ease and cost of copying both legally and illegaly, and ends up with an equation that suggests the optimal term of 14 years.

Before arriving at the 14 year figure, the paper starts by showing that the optimal copyright term drops as production costs fall and that in general it falls over time. The calculations and conclusions in the paper are based on analysis of various studies published in the US and UK over the last 10 years and cover subjects ranging from the effects of recent copyright extensions to file sharing among college students.

The paper can be freely downloaded in its entirety, and a brief overview is also available.

Source: Rufus Pollock

Previous Next  

13 user comments

116.7.2007 11:40

Here in the U.S., this lifetime + copyright system is ridicules. Amazing you could invent a cure to cancer and it would be yours for less than fifteen years. Write a book or movie or CD and it's yours forever.

Terrible.

216.7.2007 12:56

LOL... you find a cure for aids or cancer and you wont have any rights to it after 2 days... Thats our government... Remember when the DNA straind was mapped out completely... That same week, ALL information was "lost" Computers, hard copies, etc....

316.7.2007 13:52

Originally posted by gallagher:
Here in the U.S., this lifetime + copyright system is ridicules. Amazing you could invent a cure to cancer and it would be yours for less than fifteen years. Write a book or movie or CD and it's yours forever.

Terrible.
I don't mind lifetime as long as it the CP dose not leave the hands of the creator,once "out of the bucket" the corporation's should fight to win the CP back every 20 years otherwise its public domain until a conglomerate is willing to put money into it to get it to the people at a reasonable price.

417.7.2007 18:10

I thought it was life time due to the fact if the person is still alive you still need to give royalties. Putting a cap on it may help but i still feel that it wont do as well.

517.7.2007 18:35

Originally posted by borhan9:
I thought it was life time due to the fact if the person is still alive you still need to give royalties. Putting a cap on it may help but i still feel that it wont do as well.
lifetiem+90 and growing,the trouble is once it leaves the hands of the creator or family there should not be a inf CP on it,there should be a setup on how you handle it say you buy a CP of cartoon show just to let it collect dust,I wish the CP law would make it so if you do not start using the CP( creating new series,comic,books,works of some kind or making DVDs from it) then there is no fing reason to keep it locked away it should be made public domain until a corperation wishes to release it or create new of it then it should be let to have untill it starts neglecting it, this holding CPs for "ransom dust" BS needs to end.

617.7.2007 21:42

This lifetime+90 years BS is because of Disney. They don't want to lose Mickey Mouse.

Interestingly, 14 years is the original length the copyright laws of the USA specified before they were tampered with.

717.7.2007 21:47

Originally posted by phantasee:
This lifetime+90 years BS is because of Disney. They don't want to lose Mickey Mouse.

Interestingly, 14 years is the original length the copyright laws of the USA specified before they were tampered with.
true, I would not mind seeing something like its 14 years after the creator sales the CP,or its a max of 20 years if a corporation made it,but any way you slice it the system is broken.

821.7.2007 15:37

Originally posted by phantasee:
This lifetime+90 years BS is because of Disney. They don't want to lose Mickey Mouse.

Interestingly, 14 years is the original length the copyright laws of the USA specified before they were tampered with.
Actually it was more than 14, 27 i believe, with a renewal able to be applied for the final year that doubled the original time(or maybe it was a 17+28).. then they changed to automatically give copyright to writer (thought you still needed to register to be able to sue infringers) and they had a requirement that you needed to say it was copyrighted [ (C) 2007 by qazwiz ] which is now only a suggestion.... they also super jumped the price of registering copyright...

as for Mickey Mouse... I thought that was a trade mark, like the castle, which is forever as long as it is still used (unknown time period exists here, for this argument let us say it is ASD years) I remember this because ASD-1 years after NBC stopped using that famous peacock they restarted using it in less areas (I think their movies display it) just to keep the TM

the patents have been less because they are dependent on advancement and each improvement will allow a new patent based on the original

as for lifetime +... sounds nice while the inventor/writer owns it but it is often sold and then, as stated before, shelved to prevent the competition of an inferior product.

as proven by the company buy-ups that you never see a new release of bought product
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Jul 2007 @ 15:39

921.7.2007 16:40

Quote:
the patents have been less because they are dependent on advancement and each improvement will allow a new patent based on the original
That is the whole point. Copyrighted material can easily be advanced as well, especially software-copyrighted material.


1021.7.2007 18:04

Quote:
Quote:
the patents have been less because they are dependent on advancement and each improvement will allow a new patent based on the original
That is the whole point. Copyrighted material can easily be advanced as well, especially software-copyrighted material.
Such as games,but should a 10 year game be pulled from sharing because its had a in name sequel?

1121.7.2007 20:16

Quote:
LOL... you find a cure for aids or cancer and you wont have any rights to it after 2 days... Thats our government...Remember when the DNA straind was mapped out completely... That same week, ALL information was "lost" Computers, hard copies, etc....
Actually,that's like almost every goverment in the world.Long live the open-source! :-DDD

BTW,if major copyright holders agree with such a scheme and introduce it as a Copyright Law and passes I will donate 60% of my one bank account to Afterdawn and the rest 40% will be divided and distributed accordingly to each user of Afterdawn. ---> Do not make wishes cause these things happen only in movies.LoL :-DDD

1223.7.2007 9:30

Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:
Quote:
Quote:
the patents have been less because they are dependent on advancement and each improvement will allow a new patent based on the original
That is the whole point. Copyrighted material can easily be advanced as well, especially software-copyrighted material.
Such as games,but should a 10 year game be pulled from sharing because its had a in name sequel?
Let's think of an old game. Super Mario Brothers. Yes, it should no longer be copyrighted. Had I invented a product, my patent would be over by now, so copyrights as well should not be extended. I could easily say: I might be "adding" or "updating" my product so I want to continue to hold the original patent. That is how copyrights work. I just see a huge inequity there.


1323.7.2007 12:58

Originally posted by gallagher:
Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:
Quote:
Quote:
the patents have been less because they are dependent on advancement and each improvement will allow a new patent based on the original
That is the whole point. Copyrighted material can easily be advanced as well, especially software-copyrighted material.
Such as games,but should a 10 year game be pulled from sharing because its had a in name sequel?
Let's think of an old game. Super Mario Brothers. Yes, it should no longer be copyrighted. Had I invented a product, my patent would be over by now, so copyrights as well should not be extended. I could easily say: I might be "adding" or "updating" my product so I want to continue to hold the original patent. That is how copyrights work. I just see a huge inequity there.
pretty much the orgdinal work can be given away freely,remastered (like the GBA/DS version)works should not least till its hits 5+ :P

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive