Verizon is my ISP. The quality of its service has recently gone to terrible. This afternoon I tried to go to the WHUT website. I gave up after 15 minutes. Other websites seem to be afflicted with popup ads and repeated switches of address that send you somewhere else than you want and slow the use of the web terribly. I have been using the web for 10 or more years (I no longer remember how long). The service is worse and the cost keeps rising. Now it looks as if the government is about to allow something called premium service. Lucky us.
Nasch is right and I'm wrong. But the burden of my message remains. The present value of future years' income is sharply lower the further out the time period goes. Thus, as an inducement, it diminishes and with it, the justification for copyright under the terms of the constitution. The present term of copyright is absurd and even reducing it to 59 years is too. It simply perpetuates state created monopoly--a bad policy in terms of citizen welfare.
The constitution proposes granting copyrights in order to encourage innovation. The appropriate estimator for that is the present value of the monopoly to be granted, i.e. the present value of the stream of benefits arising from the monopoly. Assuming an alternative rate of return of 10% (in the stock market?), the present value of the monopoly next year should be discounteded by 10% percent. That from the following year is reduced by 20% and so on. Thus the present value of earnings from beyond 10 years is 0. In other words, the monopoly's value is reduced to nothing after 10 years and is no inducement to innovate. In sum, it violates the constitution and contributes to its opposite--competition-stifling monopolies.
And the proposed reduced copyright term of 56 years is a joke. It would be a move in the right direction, but totally inadequate to the goal--innovation.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Bennett.
Verizon and its "service"
Verizon is my ISP. The quality of its service has recently gone to terrible. This afternoon I tried to go to the WHUT website. I gave up after 15 minutes. Other websites seem to be afflicted with popup ads and repeated switches of address that send you somewhere else than you want and slow the use of the web terribly. I have been using the web for 10 or more years (I no longer remember how long). The service is worse and the cost keeps rising. Now it looks as if the government is about to allow something called premium service. Lucky us.
Length of copyright
Nasch is right and I'm wrong. But the burden of my message remains. The present value of future years' income is sharply lower the further out the time period goes. Thus, as an inducement, it diminishes and with it, the justification for copyright under the terms of the constitution. The present term of copyright is absurd and even reducing it to 59 years is too. It simply perpetuates state created monopoly--a bad policy in terms of citizen welfare.
Length of copyright
The constitution proposes granting copyrights in order to encourage innovation. The appropriate estimator for that is the present value of the monopoly to be granted, i.e. the present value of the stream of benefits arising from the monopoly. Assuming an alternative rate of return of 10% (in the stock market?), the present value of the monopoly next year should be discounteded by 10% percent. That from the following year is reduced by 20% and so on. Thus the present value of earnings from beyond 10 years is 0. In other words, the monopoly's value is reduced to nothing after 10 years and is no inducement to innovate. In sum, it violates the constitution and contributes to its opposite--competition-stifling monopolies.
And the proposed reduced copyright term of 56 years is a joke. It would be a move in the right direction, but totally inadequate to the goal--innovation.