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."
extending and strengthening copyright terms has little effect on actual innovation but how do you measure innovation? you can't just say that so many more CD's were sold or so many more compositions were written. The statistics are there but I believe that they don't prove the hypothesis.
Well you have to also analyze the quality of the those extensions. A well thought out extension to the copyright terms could certainly have a positive effect on innovation, but sadly the viewpoint of the bodies making those extensions is only to protect. Little thought is given as to how it could be used to effect innovation positively.
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
"I found is basically what many suspected all along: extending and strengthening copyright terms has little effect on actual innovation."
Innovation isn't always completely tied to copyright terms. Take the GNU/BSD licenses (copyright terms) of the recent decade. They're successfull and at least a part of their success comes from people being not satisfied with other copyright terms.
Indirect the innovation comes from the strengthening of other copyright terms, but you cant say it doesn't have any effect. It does, people are searching for other ways in order to not infringe other stupid copyrights (MS EULA).
Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
My understanding is that registration isn't required in order for your work to be copyrighted, and hasn't been required since at least 1976. Everything I read on this give some line about how registering a copyright makes your court case easier if you have so sue someone over infringement, but I wonder how many published works are registered.
I would venture to guess that most mainstream works are.
Innovation is impossible to quantify. Using the number of copyright registrations as the measure of innovation is ignoring much, mostly innovation in the public domain. There's nothing wrong with puting together these statistics for analysis, but jumping to any conclusion about quantity of innovation is impossible. It's simply impossible to factually state whether innovation increased or decreased during any period of time. It's purely judgemental.
Developers: We can use your help.
Although statistics might have their place somewhere I've yet to find that place...
...100% of polls are misleading and only serve the purpose or ideology of the entities invloved...
The place you have yet to find is where proper data is gathered for the situation under investigation and no inferences are drawn from the statistics other than the strictly limited ones a given statistical method is designed to permit. Sadly, your statement about polls or other methods of gauging public opinion is correct since every effort is made under those circumstances to force the analysis into a path that supports a predetermined agenda. In this article, however, the author goes to some lengths to avoid these pitfalls. He clearly describes his source data, being careful to show where its shortcomings are and to illustrate his reasons for choosing that particular set of input data. He is honest about the conclusions he draws too - There are only two valid conclusions for most analytical statistics applied to seeking a corellation between apparently distinct data series, you can either say "We are n% confident that a relationship exists" and then go on to analyse it further or you can say "We cannot show a relationship between X and Y." Unlike most bad analysis this author does not take that latter case and claim it proves there is no relationship. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and this author should be applauded for not falling into this trap.
In short, it appears that an effort has been made here to apply statistics properly and under such circumstances the conclusions drawn are less likely to be BS. Just because a statistical calculation is involved doesnt make the answer wrong or the analyst dishonest.
I had a
Ari Friedman, I whole heartedly commend you for your efforts in academia and drive to learn and explore. Great job, keep up the good work.
/. posters above, why is the desire to learn looked down upon in America? If all you want to do is party and get drunk, why are you paying thousands dollars to do so?
As for the
The mentality is what is causing the sharp decreases in students going into mathematics, the sciences and engineering fields, because they are viewed as being only for "nerds". A recent article posted on yahoo news stated that it is believe by 2010 that 90% of all physical scientists will be Asian, and that over 50% of them will be working in Asia. What's America going to do with a society comprised largely of business students and other "soft" degrees?
My take? The article is a troll. But by the time everyone reads it and reports that the contents are bull, the author has what he wanted: a nice, tidy pile of ad impressions (the majority of the web users don't have popup blocking capabilities).
*sigh*
Err, so? The statistical trends are still valid. ie, assuming a constant factor of, say, three copyrights per one musical work, the two data sets will still display a correlation. Basically, what you're describing should disappear in the analysis.
Also interesting is that, as the price of CDs increase, shipments increase.
Did he adjust for inflation? I assume not. I don't know whether that would affect the outcome because he didn't show that data, only data derived from that data.
RIAA...has a nasty tendency to only release data which they can put a proper spin on...
The author knows this...how? Or the author has a strong gut feeling this way? Tendency?
If anyone disputes my figures, please give me a better set.
Uh, sorry, that's not the way science works. You're the claimant.
Constitution proscribes
Picking nits here, but proscribe means to forbid. Everybody misuses this word.
However, given that hundreds of thousands of works are produced each year, one must assume that the sheer numbers involved evens out the effects of differing quality. So the premise remains valid.
Here is the fatal flaw of it all: with less copyright protection, we would tend to less a lesser diminution of lower-expense copyrights (music in particular). If works are being produced irrespective of a minimal investment, copyright protection won't generally affect them, and indeed copyright may be an afterthought. So the quality of the patents is an overwhelmingly important question; if protection changes the character of the innovation, then the actual amount of it is irrelevant.
What it will affect is the willingness of creators to spend money to develop an article, since reduced copyright protection diminishes their ability to recapture those funds later. Perhaps a more pertinent question would be the correlation between R&D funds and copyright protection. That would seem to be an even more hellish proposition in getting the data.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
I quote from the article:
What, is this guy crazy? Of course CDs are luxury items! When I was flush with my phat geek paycheck, I was buying CDs like there was no tomorrow. When I got laid off last year, what do you think one of the first things I stopped buying was? CDs, of course! I can live without the latest White Stripes CD, I can't live without making my mortgage payment and buying food.
Creative people can retire as well as anyone else, as long as they put money away for retirement.
it doesn't allow creative people to retire.
How does any self-employed person retire? Why would an IRA or 401(k) be different for an author than for anybody else?
I'd like to see 14+14 years, the same copyright term provided by the Copyright Act of 1790. If it worked in 1803, I don't see what's wrong with it in 2003.
Will I retire or break 10K?