The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge Page B
Authors: Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge
Ads: Link
saw computer programs as something that you
upgrade at least every second or third year. Programs older than that would
have no commercial value, so it ought to be enough with a quite short
protection time for computer programs. Music, on the other hand, could very
often live forever, so the protection time for music ought to be much longer.
This is what he felt.
And this is how it normally is, my friend, who had had similar
discussions with other people, told me. For the kind of works that is closest
to your own heart, you would normally find it reasonable to have a longer
protection time, but shorter for everything else. This is how most people feel,
it appears.
For this reason, we would probably not be able to agree about which
kinds of works should have shorter or longer protection times. In this kind of
discussions, where you are trying to agree on a time limit of x years, it is in
the nature of things that all suggestions for values for x tend to be somewhat
arbitrary and picked out of thin air. Having to come up with different
semi-arbitrary values for each different category of works just makes it more
complicated, and reduces the chances of finding a solution that you can defend
with objective arguments.
But if you look at the issue from an investor’s point of view, things
become different. The music industry may be very different from the computer
software sector, but they have one thing in common. Money is money, regardless
of what sector you choose to invest it in.
When an investor makes the decision to invest in a project in any
industry – it may be music, film, computer programs for the mass market,
or anything else – he will calculate his business case with a certain
time to get a return on his investment. If the project goes according to plan
it is supposed to cover its cost and make a profit within x years. If not, it
is a failure.
x is always a very small number in this kind of calculations. That
somebody would seriously make a business case for a cultural project where the
time to payback is more than three years, probably never happens. People who
build bridges and nuclear reactors and the like will of course use longer
investment horizons, but outside those industries, business cases that are
longer than three years are very uncommon in business in general.
This is of course even more so in the cultural sector. Who can predict
what will be cool and hip two or three years from now, in such a fast moving
landscape as culture. Most cultural projects are expected to pay for themselves
and make a profit within a year.
By looking at the protection times from an investor’s point of view, we
can justify having the same protection time for all works, even though they are
different. The purpose of the economic exclusivity part of copyright is to
attract investors to the cultural sector. And investors think in the same way
regardless of what they are investing in.
The project should pay for itself and make a profit within one or a few
years, otherwise it is a failure. The small theoretical chance that the work
that you financed turns out to be a timeless classic that continues to generate
revenues for decades is a nice bonus chance for the investor, but nothing that
has a place in a serious business case.
So why 20 years, and not 5 or 3?
Our suggestion for a protection time of 20 years is a pragmatic
compromise. Even if there are sound arguments for why 5 years or even shorter
might be enough from society’s point of view, many people still instinctively
feel that 5 years would be to short, at least in some cases.
And rather than getting bogged down in an unproductive quarrel over what
will always remain at least partly arbitrary numbers, we choose to say 20
years.
The important thing is to get away from today’s protection times of a
human lifetime or more. These long protection times are clearly harmful to
society, since they effectively keep
upgrade at least every second or third year. Programs older than that would
have no commercial value, so it ought to be enough with a quite short
protection time for computer programs. Music, on the other hand, could very
often live forever, so the protection time for music ought to be much longer.
This is what he felt.
And this is how it normally is, my friend, who had had similar
discussions with other people, told me. For the kind of works that is closest
to your own heart, you would normally find it reasonable to have a longer
protection time, but shorter for everything else. This is how most people feel,
it appears.
For this reason, we would probably not be able to agree about which
kinds of works should have shorter or longer protection times. In this kind of
discussions, where you are trying to agree on a time limit of x years, it is in
the nature of things that all suggestions for values for x tend to be somewhat
arbitrary and picked out of thin air. Having to come up with different
semi-arbitrary values for each different category of works just makes it more
complicated, and reduces the chances of finding a solution that you can defend
with objective arguments.
But if you look at the issue from an investor’s point of view, things
become different. The music industry may be very different from the computer
software sector, but they have one thing in common. Money is money, regardless
of what sector you choose to invest it in.
When an investor makes the decision to invest in a project in any
industry – it may be music, film, computer programs for the mass market,
or anything else – he will calculate his business case with a certain
time to get a return on his investment. If the project goes according to plan
it is supposed to cover its cost and make a profit within x years. If not, it
is a failure.
x is always a very small number in this kind of calculations. That
somebody would seriously make a business case for a cultural project where the
time to payback is more than three years, probably never happens. People who
build bridges and nuclear reactors and the like will of course use longer
investment horizons, but outside those industries, business cases that are
longer than three years are very uncommon in business in general.
This is of course even more so in the cultural sector. Who can predict
what will be cool and hip two or three years from now, in such a fast moving
landscape as culture. Most cultural projects are expected to pay for themselves
and make a profit within a year.
By looking at the protection times from an investor’s point of view, we
can justify having the same protection time for all works, even though they are
different. The purpose of the economic exclusivity part of copyright is to
attract investors to the cultural sector. And investors think in the same way
regardless of what they are investing in.
The project should pay for itself and make a profit within one or a few
years, otherwise it is a failure. The small theoretical chance that the work
that you financed turns out to be a timeless classic that continues to generate
revenues for decades is a nice bonus chance for the investor, but nothing that
has a place in a serious business case.
So why 20 years, and not 5 or 3?
Our suggestion for a protection time of 20 years is a pragmatic
compromise. Even if there are sound arguments for why 5 years or even shorter
might be enough from society’s point of view, many people still instinctively
feel that 5 years would be to short, at least in some cases.
And rather than getting bogged down in an unproductive quarrel over what
will always remain at least partly arbitrary numbers, we choose to say 20
years.
The important thing is to get away from today’s protection times of a
human lifetime or more. These long protection times are clearly harmful to
society, since they effectively keep
Similar Books
