MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - New Paper Argues for Reasonable Reduction in Copyright

petrucci · 05-03-2014, 08:09 AM

Given that we have an economy based on capitalism, it is critically important that the creators of works are allowed to profit from their creations. The length of the copyright term is the debatable point. The arguments in the cited paper argue for the reduction in the duration of copyright. I believe that different industries may need different lengths of copyright. Some of these industries may need longer copyright. In the linked paper, the author argues that certain works, such as Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev, are performed less often than they used to be, because they went back into copyright. I would argue that the availability of free works has damaged the economy of music making. The orchestras simply cannot afford to perform a work that costs money. You can imagine that this stifles new composition, one of the activities that copyright is supposed to protect.

In this era where digital works can be produced at essentially no cost (only the cost to run the computer), it is important to protect the value intellectual property. I will give another example from the music industry. Recordings changed the musical economy irrevocably. In the past, actual musicians needed to be present for someone to hear music. With the advent of recordings, this was no longer the case. A reduction in copyright could cause a similar shift in the economy. If we were to decrease the duration of the copyright, certain industries would be greatly negatively impacted. Imagine bands trying to complete against free albums by everyone up to the year 2000. Everything from the Beetles through Nirvana would be free. It would be really hard to sell new stuff.

Given the current system, it makes sense that copyrights are continually increasing. Current authors are competing with the best works of the past. They need to produce better works. As one might imagine it takes that much more time and care to produce such works. Thus, the continual increase in copyright terms in this economy makes sense, as the author needs to be incentivised to produce great new works.

None of this is to say that I believe our economy is working properly. I happen to be working on a computer program to help disabled children. The project has been passed over by the big companies, as it is not profitable enough for them. What a sad economy we have.

05-03-2014, 08:09 AM	#17
petrucci Groupie Posts: 198 Karma: 1647827 Join Date: Jun 2011 Device: Kindle Paperwhite	Given that we have an economy based on capitalism, it is critically important that the creators of works are allowed to profit from their creations. The length of the copyright term is the debatable point. The arguments in the cited paper argue for the reduction in the duration of copyright. I believe that different industries may need different lengths of copyright. Some of these industries may need longer copyright. In the linked paper, the author argues that certain works, such as Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev, are performed less often than they used to be, because they went back into copyright. I would argue that the availability of free works has damaged the economy of music making. The orchestras simply cannot afford to perform a work that costs money. You can imagine that this stifles new composition, one of the activities that copyright is supposed to protect. In this era where digital works can be produced at essentially no cost (only the cost to run the computer), it is important to protect the value intellectual property. I will give another example from the music industry. Recordings changed the musical economy irrevocably. In the past, actual musicians needed to be present for someone to hear music. With the advent of recordings, this was no longer the case. A reduction in copyright could cause a similar shift in the economy. If we were to decrease the duration of the copyright, certain industries would be greatly negatively impacted. Imagine bands trying to complete against free albums by everyone up to the year 2000. Everything from the Beetles through Nirvana would be free. It would be really hard to sell new stuff. Given the current system, it makes sense that copyrights are continually increasing. Current authors are competing with the best works of the past. They need to produce better works. As one might imagine it takes that much more time and care to produce such works. Thus, the continual increase in copyright terms in this economy makes sense, as the author needs to be incentivised to produce great new works. None of this is to say that I believe our economy is working properly. I happen to be working on a computer program to help disabled children. The project has been passed over by the big companies, as it is not profitable enough for them. What a sad economy we have.