MIT Economist: Here's How Copyright Laws Impoverish Wikipedia
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Given the administrative hassles of getting a permission, not to mention having to make royalties payments, all ensure that this is the case. Surely, to stop people using the image or whatever is the very purpose of copyright in the first place?
Where is the utility and novelty in 'research' like this?
I thought the purpose was to financially compensate the original creators of the image or whatever
Funny how lies work.
Best cite from that article to a more scholarly source appears to be to this book (http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Intellectual-Property-Oxford-...), in which we can read:
""" In most European countries the origins of copyright law lie in the efforts of government to regulate and control the output of printers [...] printing made it possible to have as many exact copies of a work as there were persons who wanted and could afford to buy them. This meant much more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information. While the state and church thought this was to be encouraged in many aspects [...], it also meant that undesirable content -- dissent and criticism of government and established religion, for example -- could circulate too quickly for their comfort. So, all over Europe, government established controls over printing, by requiring printers to have official licenses to be in business and produce books. These licenses typically gave the printer the exclusive right to print particular works for a fixed period of years, enabling him to prevent others from doing so during that period. """
This incarnation of copyright is pretty directly prohibited by the 1A's guarantee of freedom "of the press", but there seems to be agreement that that's what copyright was about when it was established.
Depends on which countries we're talking about.
I know it's popular on sites like this one to act like copyright laws are strictly bad, that no work's creation ever depends on IP laws, etc., but an honest assessment would be that some works require IP to exist, while some do not.
So, after creation, copyright hurts Wikipedia's ability to incorporate a work, while some works would not exist but for copyright. Which effect is more significant, and is that a net positive or negative for Wikipedia?
Well, that would take real research.
You know, the kind this economist didn't do.
A common argument is that more creativity is restricted by copyright than is enabled by it.
That makes copyright a poor trade off.
That wasn't the conclusion.
The conclusion was that images are worth more, in terms of updates and visits, to Wikipedia articles than text.
This is still a conclusion that will doubtless have its share of people calling it obvious, but it's one I haven't seen quantified like this before. And in the case of baseball players in particular, in theory an image doesn't add nearly as much as their stats and team/championship information.
... because Wikipedia can be sued for using them, and fair use is a very, very bad thing to try and rely on in an actual court. 'Fair use' is whatever a judge says it is, which isn't something you can rely on going your way.
None of these things are really viable for Wikipedia. Fair use is a necessary evil, but when they can replaced with a free image then that is what is done!
This means that if the image is restricted in such a way that others can't modify or distribute it, then it can't be used. Fair use is a legal doctrine that limits the rights of copyright holders, but it is very narrow.
Essentially, to be "fair use", the usage must consider the purpose of the work, the nature of the work, the amount used and the effect using the work has on the market for the work.
In essence, while fair use allows for free distribution, it also severely limits it. Fair use is thus controversial on Wikipedia, and while allowed is severely frowned upon.
If you can't modify something that is part of the project, then this is defying the essential raison de être of the project. Fair use allows it, but it's so problematic that many would just like to get rid of it. I'm not one of those people, but it should only be used judiciously.
Should that be 0.0667?
And this is why economists are useless.
Copyrighted. It's about rights, specifically, the rights to copy and authorize copying.