What happens when he goes to the movies?

I have been meaning to post about some remarkable research by Eckhard Hoeffner for a while, but only now have time to do partial justice to it. Eckhard identified a nearly perfect natural experiment about the impact of copyright:

In 1815 the German confederation consisted of 39 states with no effective copyright. At that time Great Britain was a monolithic state in which the well enforced copyright had just been extended to 28 years or the life of the author. Germany was a bit larger in population about 27 million against 17 million, but population in England was growing much more rapidly, was concentrated in urban areas and England was a much richer nation. So many more titles were produced in England obviously with all that extra incentive from copyright.

A picture speaks louder than words

Eckhard goes on to analyze how authors fared with and without copyright. The bottom line: the journeyman author - those who produce most of the books - did better without copyright. The big guys at the top? They did better with copyright.

For all the details you can find Eckhard's slides here, and I am sure more is to come.

It's official. The Federal Government of Canada unveiled Bill C-32 this afternoon; it places emphasis upon the sanctity of technological protection measures (TPMs). Michael Geist gives the Reader's Digest version. He points to some good news, including: ISPs retain the notice-and-notice system (that they have informally been working under for years); fair dealing has broadened modestly (parodic and some educational uses would be included); and some other consumer-friendly provisions are proposed (I think it will finally be lawful to video-tape a television program and watch it later.) However, if circumventing a TPM is involved, all bets are off.

For those of you who have been counting, this is the third effort, in the past five years, by Canada to amend the Copyright Act. The previous two each died on their order papers - victims of Parliamentary instability. That is unlikely to happen this time. It appears the government will endeavor to fast-track the bill into law.

Via Afterdawn, the U.S. Government Accounting Office has issued a report that indicates that the FBI, Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Border Patrol have simply made up numbers about losses the entertainment industries have incurred due to internet piracy. And, of course, the RIAA and the MPAA have happily passed these numbers along.

See it for yourself here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/star-wars-uncut-fans-recr_n_536332.html

http://www.starwarsuncut.com/

Music to ears around here is a leader (editorial) in The Economist this week entitled Copyright and wrong: Why the rules on copyright need to return to their roots link here. It begins by observing that copyright became law in England 300 years ago this week, as "An act for the encouragement of learning." It put a time limit of 21 years if a book was already in print and 14 years if it was new, with a right to get it extended 14 more if the author was still alive. And that was the end of it.

The opinion piece goes on to make a series of familiar arguments; that the belief that extension of a copyright's term increases creativity is questionable and that current lengths discourage creativity when the penalties even for inadvertent infringement are draconian as is often the case. It also asserts, "Authors and artists do not generally consult the statute books before deciding whether or not to pick up pen or paintbrush." It ends by noting that a return to the earlier much shorter term of copyright would be "arbitrary but not unreasonable." And "[i]f there is a case for longer terms, they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not locked up automatically." "[F]air use needs to be expanded and inadvertent infringement should be minimally penalized."

Well reasoned and stated.

The Statute of Anne makes for interesting reading.

For instance, if books were perceived as overpriced, any individual could make a complaint to the authorities (among them the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Court, the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge). Booksellers and printers could be summoned to justify the "reason of dearness." If the price was found to be excessive, the authorities could, "limit and settle the price for every such printed book."

And for each book printed, "nine copies upon the best paper," were to be reserved for "the Royal Library, the Libraries of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Libraries of the Four Universities in Scotland, the Library of Sion College in London, and the Library commonly called the Library belonging to the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh." If delivery of books did not take place within ten days after receiving a demand from a library, the offender was fined five pounds (per book).

What would five pounds in 1710 be equivalent to today?

Copyright and wrong

In another of those court decisions that infuriate critics of intellectual property, Judge Denise Cote, of the United States District Court in New York, ruled in favor of Barclays, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley. The banks claimed that the website, theflyonthewall.com, violated their copyright when it published headline news like changes in stock ratings link here. The site must now wait until 10 a.m. to publish news about research that was issued before the 9:30 a.m. opening bell or if issued during the day, by a full two hours.

The court found that fair use was topped by the "hot news" doctrine, which protects organizations from theft by competitors. The ruling clearly gives big Wall Street clients a head start each trading day. "The banks claimed Fly's practice of publishing pieces of research reports almost instantly undercut their work by making key nuggets meant for exclusive client use available to a wider audience immediately. Why would clients pay big money those reports--which themselves cost the banks money to produce--if Fly was going to publish the important stuff right away? link here

Fly will appeal. The monopolists win, if only for the moment, but the lawyers profit, no matter what.