

New study affirms that fewer copyright restrictions benefit the economy - zoowar
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/copyright-and-campaign-misinformation-new-study-affirms-less-copyright

======
luriel
There has been plenty of evidence about how intellectual property is actually
counter productive and hinders innovation for a long time:

[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm)

And is not surprising when you realize that it is basically the government
going around granting monopolies to private entities, and what incentives that
creates (the main incentive is to expand the monopoly power rather than to
create and innovate, innovation is contrary to monopolies).

------
btn
The article is _very_ light on details about how the "study" arrived at their
conclusions and figures (I hesitate to call it a _study_ , because it didn't
actually test any hypotheses).

The report is published by a group that lobbies for "copyright reform that
enables fair access to content", with a membership is predominantly tertiary
institutes.

They argue that a number of industries are _dependent_ on some "limitations
and exceptions" to copyright law. These industries include: research and
education, publishing, broadcasting, film, music, ISPs, and the performing
arts. The industries currently employ some people, make some money, and
contribute some amount to GDP. Their extend of this dependence on copyright
limitations is not quantified by thre report and is quite vague (focussing
mainly on quotation, citation, and critique).

It concludes that if Australia implements "better crafted limitations and
exceptions", these industries can increase their job/income/GDP metrics, and
reduce the amount paid as licensees of copyright protected works to foreign
companies.

------
neilc
The methodology of this report is a joke. For example, to come up with the
$600 million figure, they say:

"We simulated an increase in productivity growth in the exceptions using
industries of just one one-hundredth of its otherwise experienced growth in
the three years from 2007 through 2010 – a very conservative estimate of
additional growth."

i.e., they pulled 1% (net) increase in growth out of the air, and then simply
calculate the economic benefits of that hypothetical increased growth.

(Per <http://www.digital.org.au/media/166>)

------
anigbrowl
_Meanwhile, creativity—far from being stifled without more copyright laws on
the books—is currently thriving. There’s been a market increase in the amount
of movies, music, and books produced over the last decade, as this
comprehensive study done by CCIA and Techdirt’s Mike Masnick shows._

That's a poor argument for loosening copyright restrictions - it makes it seem
as if the status quo is OK. I personally think existing copyright terms need
to be significantly shortened, and that a legal challenge might succeed on the
basis that Congress is empowered to grant copyrights for 'a limited time.'
Insofar as copyright terms exceed the average human lifetime, they are
effectively endless for all but the longest-lived members of society,
promoting a creative gerontocracy.

~~~
nirvana
Technological advancement (eg: music software, cheap HD cameras, etc.) and
significantly better distribution platforms (eg: the internet) can account for
an increase in production... they need to account for that, otherwise its
kinda nonsensical to say what they say.

But then, it seems this is ideologically driven from the beginning.

It is much like the "studies" in the 1990s, published by microsoft (and you
see them now from google) that say Microsoft (or android) is winning.
(despite, for instance, Samsung never giving sales details, and when they were
forced to by the recent lawsuit, it turned out they were pitiful... so you
have press claiming huge sales to further and ideological position that
"Android is winning" (and thus "open" works, even though Android is no more
open than iOS) using essentially made up data and then other sources repeat it
to the point where large numbers of (frankly, uninformed) people believe it.

This is how propaganda works.

~~~
nitrogen
_...even though Android is no more open than iOS..._

Wait a minute. We all know from reading your comments on which side of the
Apple/Google divide you fall, but how on earth do you come to that conclusion?
Can you download and redistribute the complete source code to iOS?

------
pitchups
Also this TED talk by Johanna Blakley, shows how the lack of copyright and
patent protection in the fashion industry actually works to benefit both
innovation and sales:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...](http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html)

------
ericdykstra
I'd like to see a quantitative study on the effects of ridiculous patent laws.
Most HNers know that US patent law, and the entire patent system here is
broken, but a quantitative study might be able to convince people who
otherwise wouldn't pay any attention to the issue to give it some thought.

~~~
nirvana
The US Patent law, and the "entire patent system" are not broken. A lot of
very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants along these lines, but when
pressed for specifics they generally cannot back them up (eg: they haven't
even read the patents in question, or don't know the difference between a
utility patent and a design patent, or even what design or utility patents
cover.) In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent
system who understood what patents are.

Anti-IP propaganda claiming that the patent system is "doing damage" by
measuring the enforcement of patents against people will be good for
ideological arguments but actually be pointless.

Because it comes from that lack of understanding of the benefit patents
provide. Patents incentivize the publication of inventions so that others, who
may not have been up to speed on the state of the art, can come up to speed
and start competing.

They also disincentivize the need to obfuscate or protect your inventions
using physical or technological means, which improves repairability and in
fact, enabled the entire standard-component industrial sector we have that has
allowed integrated circuits to be such a big part of our lives.

Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not
because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP
people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less
communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work.

And like Global Warming and "Quantitative Easing" and other nonsensical, anti-
scientific, ideological positions, the proponents, rather than make or defend
logical arguments for their positions, tend to use signaling like "most HNers
know the US Patent law... is broken". You just presume your conclusion, and a
lot of others do as well, which is why they can't make arguments and instead
are forced to downvote or shout down those who make counter arguments. Since
having a good argument (with well researched citations) is not a defense
against downvotes on HN, your claim becomes self fulfilling-- anyone who might
challenge the ideology of anti-IP with facts, logic or reason, is downvoted so
you don't have to see them.

Which, ironically, is why I'm posting this here. Becuase I really, really,
hate to see the single mindedness, and cheering that groupthink.

So, if you want to claim that the system is broken, feel free to make an
argument, and feel free to account for the factors I briefly touched on.

~~~
nitrogen
_In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent system who
understood what patents are._

Are you talking about meeting someone on HN? How about HN user grellas, a
Silicon Valley business lawyer? I doubt his arguments against the status quo
are made in ignorance:

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=grellas+pat...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=grellas+patent)

Edit to add:

 _Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not
because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP
people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less
communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work._

It is difficult to accept this argument when the majority of software patents
we see in lawsuits are written as obtusely as possible. Software patent
language is the antithesis of "communicat[ing]... how other people's
inventions work."

~~~
nirvana
Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You believe, but you don't
know. You can't make an argument, you point to someone else, and advocate
faith.

Imagine if a religious person had used that kind of "argument" to you, and
referenced a priest regarding the law?

It is ok to not know. And it is ok to take things on faith. The problem is,
when people think that their faith means they are right and people who make
arguments they can't counter are "Wrong" because it goes against their faith.

~~~
nitrogen
Claiming that nobody who disagrees with you knows what they are talking about
is also a symptom of religious thinking. You sound exactly like your
description. Have you made any arguments yourself that don't beg the question
by saying that patents are good because they were intended to be?

You said you've never met someone who knows what patents are and still opposes
them, implying that nobody who knows is opposed to patents. I provided a proof
by counterexample of someone it would be difficult for you to argue doesn't
know what he is talking about.

And you haven't. Instead you claim that I don't know what patents are. I do
know the difference between a design patent and a utility patent (and a
trademark, and copyright). I've seen good and bad examples of each. Yet I
still oppose software patents, support reduced terms for all of the above
except trademarks, and want to see a much higher burden of proof for a patent
to be granted, and higher still for a lawsuit to proceed. I also argue that
independent invention should be a defense against patent infringement that
doesn't require an army of lawyers to raise. Yet somehow you will try to claim
I don't know what I am talking about.

The real test to distinguish rational from religious thought is the
willingness to change one's mind. I'll tell you what would change mine: a
plethora of incontrovetible, scientifically sound studies that prove that the
harm done to and risk imposed upon small innovators and market competition is
worth the benefit to society; or a solid implementation of the changes I'd
like to see, that subsequently results in a collapse of innovation (collapse
of any business alone does not count as a collapse of innovation). What would
change your mind?

------
jbaiter
This is a point that has also been made by German historian Eckhard
Höffner[1]. He claims that one of the main reasons for Germany's rise as an
industrial power during the 19th century was its very lax copyright
regulations that allowed a rapid distribution of pirate prints of publications
to every corner of Germany, thus creating a very large reading public that
would later flock to universities and engineering schools and fuel Germany's
innovative economy.

So far there hasn't been an English translation, although Ars Technica, Wired
and the English edition of the Spiegel carried good reviews/summaries[2][3][4]

[1] Eckhard Höffner: Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts. Verlag
Europäische Wirtschaft, 2010, ISBN 978-3930893164 (2 Tomes).

[2] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/drool-
britannia-d...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/drool-britannia-
did-weak-copyright-laws-help-germany-outpace-the-united-kingdom/)

[3] [http://www.wired.com/business/2010/08/copyright-germany-
brit...](http://www.wired.com/business/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/all/)

[4] [http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-
copyright-l...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-
law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html)

------
fleitz
Hardly surprising, the less government interference there is in the market the
better the economy does. Look at the industries that are tanking such as
finance, manufacturing, education, healthcare, airlines and you'll find no end
of regulation and interference.

~~~
anigbrowl
For heaven's sake, extension of copyright terms comes at the behest of the
publishing industry. Governments would likely welcome the increased economic
activity and lower administrative burden of lower copyright protection, but
publishers are going to support whatever politicians promise them the most
revenue protection. Your various comparative examples are driven by wildly
different factors (not least demographic ones) and don't support your
argument.

~~~
luriel
> For heaven's sake, extension of copyright terms comes at the behest of the
> publishing industry.

This is known as _regulatory capture_ , and is what is to be expected once the
government starts to grant monopolies: instead of competing and innovating,
corporations dedicate themselves to much more lucrative rent-seeking.

When the government is the one who decides who can do business and how, it
becomes much more lucrative to put your energy in lobbying the government for
rules favorable to you, than to put the energy in competing and pleasing
consumers.

Without patents the only thing that matters is execution: pleasing consumers,
with patents all that matters is how you can milk the system and use it to
crush your competitors that might have more competitive products.

~~~
anigbrowl
You're assuming the government initiates regulation. In reality, merchants and
artisans tend to form into guilds and then demand new entrants to that market
be licensed. Adam Smith noted this phenomenon in _The Wealth of Nations_ in
the famous passage: 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to
prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be
consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people
of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing
to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.'

A more recent treatment of the subject appears in nplusone magazine, but the
site is down just at the moment: <http://nplusonemag.com/death-by-degrees>
Another recent example from NPR:
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-
its-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-illegal-
to-braid-hair-without-a-license) (you'll be happy to know that Clayton
recently won her court case, and plans to reopen her business).

------
snowwrestler
No surprise that reducing copyright protections drives economic growth. It
acts like a reduction in cost for the raw material of other creative and
distribution businesses. What is not as clear is the impact on long-term
innovation--in particular the very capital-intensive kind.

The Lord of the Rings movies would have been less expensive to make if they
did not have to pay for the rights to use the story and characters. But would
the studio have given the green light to such an expensive shoot if they had a
lower expectation of return?

~~~
jeffool
Why should they expect a lower return? While I understand that value in being
unique, I can't imagine a high quality production of a public work would be
damaged that much by low quality productions of a similar work unless it's
just profanely overdone. And in that case, why would they have sunk that much
money into it?

I mean, every time a zombie film comes out, three cheaper ones come straight
to video. The new Dawn of the Dead did fine. And even in copyright, Snakes on
a Train was in video stores three days before Snakes on a Plane came to
theaters!

Sure, they may have had to think of a unique name to identify their product to
fans (even just "Peter Jackson's LotR",) but I'm not convinced that they
would've suffered, had lower quality renditions been widely available. It may
have made them stand out more.

