Optimum Copyright Period Decided by Math

An anonymous reader writes "So how long should a copyright be valid for? A Cambridge student has stepped into the discussion with a dispassionately calculated estimate of the optimal period a copyright should be granted. Ars' point of view: 'Neither the US nor the UK are in any danger of rethinking copyright law from scratch, but if they were looking for guidance in how to set up their systems, Pollock has it. He develops a set of equations focused specifically on the length of copyright and uses as much empirical data as possible to crunch the numbers. The result? An optimal copyright term of 14 years, which is designed to encourage the best balance of incentive to create new work and social welfare that comes from having work enter the public domain (where it often inspires new creative acts).' The original paper is available (pdf) online."

Comments

Proving once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

That the founders of the United States were geniuses... or lucky bastards.

Re:Proving once again...

[langelgjm]

The AC is referring to the fact that in the Copyright Act of 1790 (the US's first), the term of copyright was set at 14 years, and after expiration, could be renewed for another 14: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

Unfortunately, the interests that controlled the tiny minority of works that continued to be profitable after 28 years, then 56 years, lobbied for and got legislation that extended the term of all works.

Re:In the United States...

[iplayfast]

I still don't see why the Slashdot crowd cares one way or the other about the length of copyright terms

It's because the slashdot crowd is concerned about freedoms, and freedoms lost.
It's because many in the slashdot crowd believe in standing on the shoulder's of giants to make their own works. (which can't be done with the current copyright).

Re:Not mathematics, but economics

[kebes]

Well, yes and no.

The paper is clearly not a paper about mathematics. No 'new math' is being invented. But to say "there is no mathematics in the manuscript, only economics" is not at all right. The paper has plenty of math in it, used to analyze an economics question. That is like opening up a physics journal, looking at all the equations, and concluding "there is no mathematics in these manuscripts, only physics". Physics requires mathematics. Economics requires mathematics.

no theorems are formulasted or proven

Well, actually the paper has 13 theorems presented and proved. Again, these are not pure-mathematical theorems, they are economic theorems being proved using mathematical techniques.

closer to accounting than to real mathematics

I'm not sure what you mean by "real math." Accounting uses "real math." Engineering uses "real math." Analyzing the economics of copyright using rigorous equations and logical mathematical arguments is, in my estimation, "real math." He is using math as a tool, yes, but that doesn't make it "fake math." Moreover I have trouble believing that accounting typically involves setting out abstract theorems and proving them.

Re:None of you understand...

[*weasel]

It'd work exactly the way it does on existing public domain works that various companies hold various trademarks over.
E.g. Peter Pan, Sleepy Hollow, Cinderella, Snow White, etc.

You can hold a trademark over a particular design or styling of a public domain character or concept, in a particular class of goods or services. But you can't use that trademark to block the creation or marketing of further works derived from that public domain character.

Hence, there's a peanut butter company out there with a Peter Pan trademark for their foodstuffs and it happily coexists alongside Disney's Peter Pan trademarks, and all the other assorted Peter Pan trademarks -- none of which stopped BJ Hogan from making his own derivative Peter Pan movie.