[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

@Hitch: As I said before I am not going to carry on any discussion about the core matters that I raised, it is clear from your responses that you have very little idea of what I am talking about.

Why would you assume that? Simply because I don't agree with it?

But in order to clarify my mention of the Government here actually placing a cost on increasing the copyright period from +50 to +70 and from which you seem to be assuming in the following quote that this was some specific standalone look at copyright and that in your view such an analysis would be corrupted to be unfavorable to "copyrights, patents and monopolies" and so dismissed as of no value.

Because, other than arguments based entirely on the presumed rights of the public (and an assigned "value" of that) to access previously copyrighted materials, I have yet to see a whitepaper that actually has a real, quantifiable "cost" associated with it that has some sort of deleterious effect upon "government." And I still see absolutely no indicia of how copyright could affect investment of any kind.

In fact analysis was performed as part of a wide study of the implications of all the trade gains and losses on the economy arising out of a negotiated multi-country trade agreement - in that agreement, as part of the negotiations, NZ under USA pressure committed to increasing its copyright period to +70 years. So, as most of us would expect (but not you, apparently), any responsible government does an analysis of the expected consequences to the economy of the changing tariffs, trade volumes, etc. arising out of the overall agreement; that analysis was across the likes of agriculture and horticulture, manufacturing, services, etc. and, of course, included the agreed to increase in the copyright period. The outcome was an overall net gain to the economy, but among the few substantive costs to the economy (few, because NZ is basically a tariff free country) was that for the copyright period increase.

Can you clarify how the "cost" to the government--of copyright, alone--was calculated or derived? Do they mean the administrative costs, of managing copyright registrations, or...what? If you're saying that NZ came up with some analysis if how entering into, or not entering into, a TRADE agreement was assessed, that's one thing, but lumping the copyright portion into it, and attempting to then assign costs to it, as if it's a tangible product that has typical investment, etc. seems...let's just say, it's a Gumby Stretch.

So, for a start, there was no focused analysis of the costs and benefits of copyright for the sake of any agenda other than contributing to determining what the expected overall outcome on the nations economy would be from the trade agreement. The copyright period was going to be changed regardless and the legislation was written ready to be enacted for the impending start date of the trade agreement. Also, due to a lot of interest from business, economists, quasi government and other stake holders, including anti-free trade activists, this whole analysis across all industries was released to the public - as far as I am aware there has been no particular criticism of it (in fact, the only dismissal out of hand of it that I have heard comes from you, who I would assume has never seen the report or even knew of its existence until I mentioned it).

Given that you are talking about a TRADE agreement, of which, presumably, the copyright portion was some miniscule portion, why would anyone interested in trade even pay attention to it? It sounds like a housekeeping matter. I mean, let's have a real discussion of how copyright affects the NZ economy, or how the difference in copyright effective and expiration dates would affect your economy. Or INVESTMENT, which was your initial comment, right? That longer copyright periods had a deleterious effect upon investment, correct?

I don't think I'm asking for much, here. You took several positions--among them that copyright is an "outright gift," if memory serves. Among them, you asserted that:

It is also known that copyright presents a cost to the overall economy so private and public investment suffers...

(italic emphasis added)

...so I am asking nothing more than actual, factual data that substantiates that statement. Not a study or whitepaper in which the period of copyright is lumped in, with a trade agreement dealing with material goods, and presumptions and assumptions about that--which would obviously have pretty much nothing to do with whether or not COPYRIGHT causes private or public investment to "suffer."

Then at the eleventh hour the USA pulled out of ratifying the trade agreement, subsequent to which the remaining countries have regrouped and entered into essentially the same agreement and that came into force just a few days ago on 30 December. As a result of the USA pulling out the pressure on NZ to increase its copyright period disappeared and so there was no need nor economic desire to increase it.

OK, so--this agreement, then, has nothing to do with copyright any longer, and the analysis thereof has nothing to do with it, either, right?

If in the analysis there was to be any malicious conflation of the benefits of copyright extension by Government in its report to suit an agenda, as you are claiming there is, it would because of the circumstances actually be contrary to the Government's interest. That because the Government would hope to be seen in the best light by the electorate (many of whom expressed anti-free trade views) by having the net gain to the economy appear as positive as possible. It would also hope for its own self satisfaction to get a positive looking outcome of analysis of the agreement it had committed to. So in the case of any malicious doctoring of the analysis in order to meet an agenda, the analysis would misrepresent the contribution of the copyright period as being a benefit, not a cost.

I'm still awaiting any citations or quotes, from the study, that deal with copyright, rather than the trade portion? Am I the only one wondering why on earth the calculations about free trade items--which most certainly would have effects on investment etc.--are being cited for copyright, which probably does not? Can you cite the relevant passages, in the study, that you paraphrased? Where you said that copyright stifles investment? That the longer term further affected it? And the cost to the government/economy, too, please?

You asked me the likes of "After all, how many investment funding opportunities are you aware of, dealing with copyrights, really?" (I like your dismissive use of "really"). Well I do not know of any, not that I would likely have paid the required attention to see them. However, that is of no consequence as again you do not understand what was being said. I said that the costs were to the nation's economy and that a cost to the economy stifles investment in it.

Yes, but thus far, your assertion that the copyright period somehow contributes to that is merely, apparently, your opinion. You said that these costs, stifling, etc., "were known," so I'm simply asking for the data that supports that.

A nation's economy is all the concerns and resources of the nation which its prosperity relies on. So it nothing to do with investment in copyrights except to the very small place that investment in them might take place within the overwhelmingly larger rest of the whole economy.

Right--which is what I believe I said, more or less, in the beginning. Investment, inasmuch as it occurs, around copyright, would certainly cease to exist, if copyright ceased to exist, as by definition, investment means, putting one's money into something with the expectation of a profit. Certainly, nobody would publish books, sans the existence of copyright. I'm fairly sure that nobody would argue that, at least, not anyone residing in the real world.

Your entire argument about this, from the "investment" comment, has been that copyright stifles investment; that the longer periods stifle both public and private investment; your source for this comment seems to come from a much larger trade agreement, (which means physical and tangible goods) that had pretty much almost NOTHING to do with copyright, (other than extending the period, mostly a housekeeping item, it seems) and in fact, now, has nothing to do with it at all, as you yourself have indicated.

I am, then, completely at a loss to see what your argument now is. Perhaps you can clarify it by posting the relevant portions of the analysis of the previous trade-agreement, that actually dealt DIRECTLY with copyright, that substantiates the positions you cited. Because in this post, you seem to be saying that the analysis you were talking about had to do with trade, and physical items and materials--and not copyright at all.


Hitch