Optimal Copyright Length? 14 Years, Says Economist

[Lemur]

A British economist has published a paper in which he takes as much empirical data on the value of copyrights versus the value of public domain works, and crunches until he finds the best length for copyright. Surprise, surprise, his number is much closer to that put forward by the Founding Fathers (no more than 28 years) than the current regime (lifetime of author plus 70 years).

I'm not even going to touch the patent mess, which is a deep, bubbling cesspool, but I think a discussion of copyright might be productive. Summary article from Ars below the tag. Thoughts?

Researcher: Optimal copyright term is 14 years

By Nate Anderson | Published: July 12, 2007 - 01:36PM CT

It's easy enough to find out how long copyrights last, but much harder to decide how long they should last—but that didn't stop Cambridge University PhD candidate Rufus Pollock from using economics formulas to answer the question. In a newly-released paper, Pollock pegs the "optimal level for copyright" at only 14 years.

Pollock's work is based on the promise that the optimal level of copyright drops as the costs of producing creative work go down. As it has grown simpler to print books, record music, and edit films using new digital tools, the production and reproduction costs for creative work in have dropped substantially, but actual copyright law has only increased.

According to Pollock's calculations (and his paper [PDF] is full of calculations), this is exactly the opposite result that one would expect from a rational copyright system. Of course, there's no guarantee that copyright law has anything to do with rationality; as Pollock puts it, "the level of protection is not usually determined by a benevolent and rational policy-maker but rather by lobbying." The predictable result has been a steady increase in the period of copyright protection during the twentieth century.

Because Pollock's "optimal level for copyright" falls over time (as production and reproduction costs fall), policy makers need to be especially careful when contemplating increased copyright terms. It's difficult to scale back rights that have once been granted, so "it is prudent for policy-makers to err on the low side rather than the high side when setting the strength of copyright."

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).

Pollock has been an advocate for restricted copyright terms and stronger public domain for years; we earlier spotlighted a brief essay of his on the "Value of the Public Domain" that is well worth a read. His new work is getting some publicity too: it has already been highlighted by Boing Boing and will be presented at a conference in Berlin this week.

[lars573]

Thoughts? Copyright practices are a bubbling cesspool.

[Nerd] I mean Sir Paul sold the rights to the Beastles song catalogue to Michael Jackson to avoid the hassle and expense of keeping the copyrights in his name in the 80's due to British copyright law. In the US it may be two life-times but in Britain you have to renew the copyright, yourself, every 5-7 years. Or so I was told. Hasbro has lost a bunch of really great Transformer names (due to the use it or loose it 3-5 years trademarking laws in the US), and had to stick faction names in front of a bunch more. Or that Marvel comics has taken the lawsuit to bat to any company that even hints at having the word marvel on where on it's publications for 40 years.[/Nerd]

[TinCow]

The proper course of action to take on Copyright Law is not to fiddle with the length of protection, but the manner of it. I do agree that Life + 70 is way, way too long, however dropping it to 14 is also very problematic. A properly effective system would protect the rights of the author while still giving access to the work to the public domain within a reasonable time frame. Specifically, I believe the best solution is to give different time frames for different aspects of copyright.

The author should maintain full control over the actual work he or she created for a significant period of time, perhaps something like Life or 50 years, whichever is longer (to provide benefits to the author's heirs in the event of an early death). However, the right to create derivative works should become available to the public after a much shorter period. 14 years sounds good to me on that one. This will allow innovation and elaboration to continue without removing the author's ability to profit from his actual creation. Combine this with a statutorily strengthened Fair Use doctrine and you have the beginnings of a legitimately fair system.

[Papewaio]

Life + X for fiction seems ok.

If this also applies to factual works (such as say encyclopedias) which in turn could be used for say the next cure for cancer then 14 years seems better for the public good.

[Lemur]

The author should maintain full control over the actual work he or she created for a significant period of time, perhaps something like Life or 50 years, whichever is longer (to provide benefits to the author's heirs in the event of an early death). However, the right to create derivative works should become available to the public after a much shorter period. 14 years sounds good to me on that one. This will allow innovation and elaboration to continue without removing the author's ability to profit from his actual creation. Combine this with a statutorily strengthened Fair Use doctrine and you have the beginnings of a legitimately fair system.

This is pretty darn sensible. I've never considered separating aspects of copyright protection, and it certainly sounds reasonable at first blush. Makes me wonder, however, what sort of legal thicket you would get into trying to define "derivative works" versus the original work.

Obviously, Weird Al changing the lyrics of a song would be protected, if in poor taste. What if I published a John Grisham novel, changing only the names of the characters? Would I be protected as having created a derivative work? Where and how would the law delineate between theft and mutation?

[TinCow]

This is pretty darn sensible. I've never considered separating aspects of copyright protection, and it certainly sounds reasonable at first blush. Makes me wonder, however, what sort of legal thicket you would get into trying to define "derivative works" versus the original work.

Obviously, Weird Al changing the lyrics of a song would be protected, if in poor taste. What if I published a John Grisham novel, changing only the names of the characters? Would I be protected as having created a derivative work? Where and how would the law delineate between theft and mutation?

US Copyright Law already has a pretty acceptable definition of derivative works. The determination as to whether a new work is a copy of the original or a derivative of the original should be left up to the courts. It's impossible (well, probably possible, but certainly impractical) to legislate such a difference any better than it already is.

Another thing that needs to be done is to start differentiating between types of works. Literature is one thing, but computer code is entirely another. Allowing a company 95 years of exclusive use of computer code after they publish their software is incredibly stifling to the industry. Most computer code is obsolete even 5 years later. What use will it be to the public to allow free access to MSDOS source code in 2075? So, we need to start splitting off the types of works as well as the peripheral rights.

All in all, a HUGE revision is needed to make it equitable and beneficial to the public. However, that requires that Congress stop taking Disney money every time Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain. The odds of that happening are dubious at best.