[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme line insecond"Eldred" case

I'd love to see it too. I'm going to try and get a copy. If I succeed I'll 
let you know. (or if you do). I love doing mathematical modeling but 
really hate looking at the crap that gets out there in the economic 
and sociology areas...OTOH  scientists aren't immune to it either. 
We've got one clown at work who has validated his computer model 
by demonstrating it reproduces the database he put into it.

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 jerwin@gmu.edu wrote:
> > I'd actually suggest looking at the original Landes/Posner article.
> > (Try to get a hard copy-- I'm sure that Lexis-Nexis has managed to
> > mangle the calculus equations in the first segment of the article.)
> >
> If anyone does get a copy. I'd be interested in reading it over to
> criticque the math. The library here doesn't have a copy of that
> Journal.
> > "The present term [life + 50] may seem both too long--the author who
> > publishes a work at age 30 and dies at age 80 has one hundred years
> > of copyright protection, and even in the unlikely event that the
> > work will generate a substantial income in the one hundredth year,
> > the present value of that expectation will be virtually zero, and
> > arbitrary in
> And the negative influence of a term that long?
> I wondered if they accounted for the costs of a term that long, in
> terms of suppressed data that can't be built upon. Distributors who
> can't make money selling 50-year-old public domain documents, etc.
> Extra litigation.
> > As for their assertion that
> > "...This trend [towards longer copyright terms] is consistent with
> > the fact that the cost of copying has fallen over this period, we
> > showed earlier that the lower the cost of copying, the greater the
> > optimal scope of copyright protection," I am not so familiar with
> > economics, and did not bother to follow their proof.
> I'd love to see that proof.
> But, I suspect that the big problem with this line of research will
> probably be that its 'easy' to point out how much money gets lost
> without longer copyright terms. (How much has Mickey Mouse/gone with
> the wind/beatles made in the last 30 years?) But extremely hard to
> show damages. Thus, an analysis almost can't help but show that things
> are always gained by increasing copyright terms.
> Anyways, I'd be interested in seeing the article if I can get my hands
> on a copy.
> Scott