Slashdot Mirror
Statistical Analysis of Copyright Registrations
linuxizer writes "I've been poking around in Penn's Library for most of my Freshman year, looking up copyright statistics. What I found is basically what many suspected all along: extending and strengthening copyright terms has little effect on actual innovation. Perhaps most fascinating is the strong 40-year upward trend in registrations which is sharply broken in 1991 with a precipitous decline. Also included are some interesting observations about the RIAA's data. The numerous graphics should be well-enough explained that you don't need to go to the data files, but they are included if needed."
Site contains multiple popups and spyware.
I clicked on the link and there were 5 popups plus a Gator install! What kind of a sadistic freak are you?
(yes, I know, don't use IE, etc. work computer, don't have much of a choice)
Maybe you should switch to Mozilla. I've been happily-popup-free for quite a while now.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Made curious by the continual claims of politicians and industry executives that stronger copyright leads to more innovation, I went to the library early Freshman year to see if there was any corroberating research. I was unable to find any, so I went to a historical index of statistics. However, that only had data until 1970, so I extracted the more recent data from the annual Statistical Abstract(s) of the United States.
.99 .
The trends are fascinating, especially in a field where a surprising amount of innumeracy and overinterpretation appears from people who should know better. For instance:
"We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said.
They are, of course, absolutely correct. But they leave it up to the reader to infer that those respondents are displacing purchases with free music. In effect, however, what is happening is price discrimination. Those who are willing to tolerate lower-quality music are paying less (nothing) for it. Those who are not pay more. Society gains, the industry loses--and then only assuming recent studies showing that downloads serve as a form of music sampling, a free preview for users that later buy music, are incorrect.
Now, on to the data. Some of this pertains directly to copyright, others directly to the RIAA.
Most interesting to me was one trend that my statistics professor, Professor Wyner, pointed out. From the early 1950's until 1991, copyright registrations rise exponentially. In fact, a simple quadratic fit shows an Rsquare of over
That a four-decade trend of such strength could reverse itself in a single year so dramatically--and without an apparent cause--is incredible. The fact that it happens across all categories of copyright suggests the effect is perhaps due to a change in the way the Copyright Office records entries. However, given that music registrations correlate well with overall registrations, it would have to have been a policy change for all copyright entries. The sheer precipitousness of the plummet belies many otherwise viable explanations. However, in 1992, Congress passed Public Law 102-307, making renewal automatic for works from 1964-1977. Depending on whether the Copyright Office was including renewals in its statistics, 1991 could be a break in analyzability for the data. Furthermore, if they did, indeed, include renewals, trends will be blurred and obfuscated by the lagging renewal registrations.
The single-category music registrations show the same plunge.
Also interesting is that, as the price of CDs increase, shipments increase. This trend is not nearly as strong as the former, and is only based on a decade of data provided by the RIAA. Possible explanations for this trend include that CDs are a luxury item--unlikely, I should think--or that the economy's rise during this period (1990-2000) lead to an increase in spending.
And, in fact, it did. A classical Demand Curve. Not such a great mystery after all, as it turns out.
Since we are starting to analyze statistics provided by the RIAA at this point, I should mention that they have a nasty tendency to only release data which they can put a proper spin on. Consequently, analyzing becomes much more difficult and leads to kludges such as the 2002 CDs shipped data extrapolated from news of an 8.8% decline from previous years. If anyone would provide me with a complete set of Nielson SoundScan statistics this project would be much easier. If anyone disputes my figures please provide me with a better set. Many of these numbers took hours to find, here from one source, there from another. Fortunately, most of the time there was some overlap in data provided, so I was able to see that the numbers were directly comparable.
That said, the numbers are interesting. The RIAA has been shipping fewer CDs in the last few years, by all accounts. The most recent (and most contested) numbers come from SoundScan
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Prior to copyright extension private preservationists undertook the job of saving many, many obscure films that had no economic value to the former copyright holder, yet to have a cultural and historical place in the history of cinema. Now these films are totally off limits. Major studios have no interest in preserving obscure silent movies from the 1920s, yet the copyright extension has stopped private efforts to fill the gap.
The copyright extension removes all financial impetus for private individuals to undertake film preservation. Previously, companies such as Grapevine Video would undertake the preservation and recoup expenses by selling video tranfers to libraries and collectors. Maybe 200 or 300 sales at most. Now Grapevine Video is being forced out of business because they can no longer preserve and sell obscure films from our past.
The studios who own the copyrights are not going to fund preservation of films for which they can sell only a hundred or two videos. This is where private enterprise filled the gap through the meager financial incentive that public domain material offered. Now that incentive has completely gone, and most small companies involved in film preservation are now going out of business.
While strictly speaking you are correct, at least in the field of screenwriting of which I'm familiar, registering your material with the copyright office within 90 days of completion entitles you to extra classes of monetary damages in the event of infringment that are not available otherwise.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
According to an obsolete brief, on 1993-02-16, the Copyright Reform Act of 1993 was introduced in both houses of the US Congress. If the bill passes [I assume it did?], [it will] remove the requirement for registration prior to bringing suit, and would remove the restrictions on statutory damages that are described above.
Looks like a reason why registrations would trail off...
Hmmmm...
Let's cut to the chase. The grouped you polled was a convent full of nuns...
AFAIK, alot of research and effort goes into the sampling protocol.
My interpretation is that you are suggesting most study use poor sampling protocols which result in biased samples that do not accurately represent the study population. I find this very hard to swallow as you would almost have to go out of your way to do bad sampling to get unrepresentative sample populations. Even if more advanced methods of sampling cannot be used, one could fall back to random sampling mos to of the time and still get a pretty damn good sample.
I agree interpretation of statistics can be manipulated, but you're critizing the actual statistical process, and it's hard to believe there are groups of PHD's who do this that could do it flagrantly wrong. The data never lies.
I believe that before 1991 (or 1992) works had to be explicity declared and registered as copyrighted to get protection. Changes in law (or rulings, I can't remember which), made all created worked copyrighted by default so that copyright registration was no longer required.
note: this is all dredged up from memory and may be grossly inaccurate.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
Most interesting to me was one trend that my statistics professor, Professor Wyner, pointed out. From the early 1950's until 1991, copyright registrations rise exponentially. In fact, a simple quadratic fit shows an Rsquare of over .99 .
a*exp(b*x)!=a*x^2+b*x+c
Even a 10-year copyright term would be sufficient to counter the problems you are pointing to.
The author seems to make a correlation between the number of copyright registrations and the number of musical compositions. I don't believe that a true 1:1 comparison can be made between them.
It's been my experience (as a songwriter and producer) that a single work can be covered by a number of copyrights. For example, I would regularly compile a tape of unpublished recordings, entitle it "Compositions, 19xx to 19xx", and send it in with a Form PA and $20. Once I'd published a recording of a song, I'd copyright just that work. Also, the recording (tape, single, LP, or CD) would have its own copyright (under Form SR, which covers sound recordings specifically, that (P) sign that often accompanies ©). Additionally, lyrics could be copyrighted separately (under Form TX, for written works).
Sounds anal, but I had a lawyer who specialized in entertainment law suss it all out for me.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
There are popups and a Gator install?
The fact that nothing has to be registered to be copyrighted anymore accounts simply enough for that.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
After 1976, anything you write is copyrighted by default. What a copyright does is help establish when a work was created. If you sue someone for a copyright violation, the copyright date is proof of the time/date of creation. If you have not filed for copyright, then you have to come up with your own evidence of time/date of creation. Let's say that person A copyrights work X in 2003. You find out that person A stole (NOT independtly created) your work X (that you had written in 1999, but didn't copyright). You can still win a copyright infringment case. You just have to be able to prove that you created the work in 1999. Now if you had filed a copyright it would be easy. Without a copyright you have to find other evidence to convince a judge that you originally created the work in 1999.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
OK, class, repeat after me: "Quadratic" is not an example of "exponential".
But, teacher, isn't a quadratic a curve with an exponent of two?
Yes, but that is not an exponential curve. It is a polynomial curve -- a curve wherein the function depends only on integer powers of the variable. So x^2, x^3, or x^15-x^7 are polynomial. An exponential curve is one wherein the variable appears in the exponent. Examples are e^x, (1/2)^(x/3), and so on.
I have to admit, fair or not, once I hit that mistake I stopped paying attention...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach