Slashdot Mirror
The Copyright Crusade a Lost Cause?
A. Smith writes "Ars Technica is exploring the relationship between property rights and copyright, arguing that copyright holders are making a mistake by stressing similarities between property rights and copyright. They compare P2P users to 18th-century squatters in North America: 'Like squatters of old, many ordinary users find copyright law bewildering and are frustrated by the arbitrary restrictions it imposes. Customers wanting to rip their DVD collections to their computers, download music they can play on any device, or incorporate copyrighted works into original creative works find that there is no straightforward, legal way to do these things.' They conclude by offering that more reasonable, understandable copyright restrictions would result in a user base friendlier to publisher interests."
Maybe I am way off base here but it seems to me that the value of the real property (i.e. land plus fixed buildings) should be the present value of the expected rents, perhaps taking into account the possibility of periods of vacancy and variable rents for greater accuracy, OR if one is planning on living in the buildings (i.e. primary residence) then the value should be compared against the present value of expected rents that one would pay for an alternative perhaps also weighed against what one could earn by investing the difference between purchasing and renting (i.e. the opportunity cost).
If a house is costing you money each month instead of putting money in your pocket then you have to weigh the value of home ownership against alternative uses for that money (i.e. investing in something else) over a similar time period, which in housing is generally long term. The historic average return for residential real estate in the United States during the twentieth century, adjusted for inflation, was something like 1-2% which is actually pretty bad compared with alternative investments. A lot of people, as it turns out, overpaid for their primary residences in recent years and now they are screaming for the government to bail them so that they can 'stay in their home' except it was never really their home in the first place once you factor in all of the negative amortization, high purchase prices, and adjustable rate interest only loan payments...they were basically renters. Hopefully the government will not reward the the unscrupulous mortgage brokers (who knew what they were doing all along), but just as important they shouldn't reward people for signing stupid loans by bailing them out of their mortgage with taxpayer money. The whole 'predatory lending' thing is utter bullcrap, nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to sign the loan and if they couldn't understand the terms then they should have hired a CPA or independent professional to get a second opinion on the contract before they signed on the dotted line. If they find themselves in trouble now then they need to declare bankruptcy and learn a tough lesson about life.
My concern is that the Dems will bail people out with my tax money, once again rewarding the spendthrifts and fools while punishing the honest, hardworking, and diligent people who try to save and invest their money instead of rushing headlong into a bad deal and then screaming for the government to throw them a life preserver when they get in over their heads. Reward the spenders and punish the savers. It never fails in the United States and especially not during an election year...sigh.