[Foundation-l] Research: Optimal copyright term is about 14 years

Mon Jul 16 19:46:44 UTC 2007

Roger Luethi wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:20:33 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
>  
>
>>On 13/07/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Considering that this was the term in Queen Anne's Act of 1710, it has
>>>taken us 300 years to get back to where we started.  And they did it
>>>without the benefit of economic formulas.
>>>      
>>>
>>How did they get 14 years then?
>>    
>>
>The Act of Anne was basically a slightly modified Stationer's Copyright
>(which was perpetual and discredited for fostering monopolies and for its
>historical ties with censorship); its term limit may have been inspired by
>the Statute of Monopolies 14 years term (twice the duration of an
>apprenticeship -- a foreigner bringing new technology to the UK enjoyed a
>monopoly while training two generations of local folks). I think Paul David
>argued something along these lines.
>
"Fostering monopolies?"  I'm glad the movie and recording industries 
aren't out to do that. ;-)

>Like any economic model, the model in the paper can be tweaked to get a
>desired "optimal term". Arriving at 14 years appears to be somewhat of a
>publicity gag.
>
I'm not sure that I fully grasp the paper, which somewhat reinforces my 
impression that when economists use mathematical formulas it's primarily 
for cosmetic effects.  After lamenting the lack of empirical studies, he 
forthwith launches into a theoretical one that would clearly require a 
bit of hypothesis testing.  Be that as it may it takes the subject into 
an interesting direction, and it would be nice to see more work done on 
this.

Ec