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

The incentive won't work for pop music.

[aadvancedGIR]

We see dozen of example every day. To have the most creativity from an pop music "artist", you need to have them produce everything they can within 2 years then trash them.
The reason is simple:
-before one year, they arent that cool anymore.
-after 2/3 years, megalomania and cocaine had destroyed most of their tallent and they apprear more often in the tabloid than in the charts.
after 5/10 years, the lucky/clever ones flip burgers in Alabama, the other ones now being homeless crack whores and even the worst tabloid won't make a line on any of them, except maybe if he dies in a very funny way.

MAFIAA producer already know these facts for decades, why couldn't higly educated /.ers understand something as simple as:
1- Buy copyrights from the artists for next to nothing
2- Make them work like slaves while they're cool then dump them
3- $$$$

no appreciation for the starving artist

[akahige]

Having only read the story, not the source papers, I can only say as an artist, there is absolutely zero "social welfare" that comes from depriving me of the right to control my work and profit from my efforts during my lifetime.

By that logic, the first of the Harry Potter books will soon be entering the public domain. Granted, Potter is a phenomenon, and Rowling has been lucky enough to make a boatload of money off of her work, but a copyright term like this would nip that right in the bud. Fan fic of the most vile nature could take its legitimate place right next to the canon, if someone were to publish it. There would be no reason to pay the author one more dime going forward. Limiting, if not eliminating, any incentive for them to put their blood and sweat into continuing their work. What kind of socialist fantasy is that?

From the summarizing article, this concept seems to apply ONLY to corporate producers and has no appreciation for the poor individual whose very existence is determined by their ability to profit from their work. I'm sorry, but having the ability to throwing rotten eggs against a wall in an artistic universe that someone else created does not even remotely count as "inspiring new creative acts".