版权之害

    希尔德的发现是基于系统研究亚马逊网站上新书（与旧书相对）的多寡而得的，它揭示了19世纪50年代出版的书与20世纪50年代出版的书在可获得性上的巨大差异，尽管后一个时期中出版的书要多得多。这项研究中的一张图表更是清晰地表明，“在公共领域版权到期的1923年之前，亚马逊网站上有数量惊人的初次出版的新书，而在1923年之后，亚马逊首次出版的书数量则急剧下降。”

    而与此同时，为版权保护积极游说的利益团体则“在缺乏实证证据支撑的情况下辩称，一旦作品进入公共领域，就会遭到侵害。按照这种理论，是公共利益要求延长版权保护期，以防止公共领域出现版权灾难。”

    这些游说者的说法是建立在缺乏经济常识的理论基础上的：即所谓的从根本上说，像书籍、电影和音乐这类传媒产品的市场必须形成垄断才能有效运转。他们说，如果任何人都能销售小说或电影，人们就会一拥而上争相复制生产，导致价格急剧下跌。但是正如希尔德所指出的，尽管可能会出现竞争，但并不会妨碍它们的开发利用，绳子、牛奶、铅笔等不存在垄断的商品就是这样。”而且需要指出的是，上述商品都没有受到有任何时限的专卖权保护，更别提几十年的保护期了。

    版权当然是必须要有的，这样创作者才能挣回成本，获得不错的回报——这就能提供创造动力了。但这并不意味着版权所有人应该一直紧抓着自己的版权不放，非要到作品已无法在市场流通为止。

    希尔德的这篇论文还提到了《数字千年版权法》（Digital Millennium Copyright Act）的“安全港”这个条款，探讨了它如何让经典老歌能继续在YouTube上传播的原因。YouTube为版权所有者提供了一条从自己拥有的歌中轻松生财的方便之道，哪怕这些歌已被侵权人给上传了。这样就算这些歌无法从其他渠道获得，也能“满足潜在乐迷的市场”。（财富中文网）

    译者：清远

    Heald's findings, based on a systematic study of availability of new (as opposed to used) books on Amazon, revealed the immense difference between books published in the 1850s and those from the 1950s despite the fact that many more books were published in the latter decade. And, as a chart included with his study starkly reveals, there is an "eye-poppingly disproportionate number of new Amazon books initially published before the public domain cut-off date of 1923 and new Amazon books initially published after 1923."

    Meanwhile, copyright lobbyists "argue -- without empirical support -- that bad things happen to the work when it falls into the public domain. The public interest, so the story goes, requires term extension to prevent a public domain calamity."

    Those lobbyists pin their arguments on theories that make no economic sense: essentially, that the market for media products like books, films, and music needs to be a monopoly in order to function. If anybody can market a given novel or film, they argue, then too many people will produce copies, driving down the price. But as Heald notes, despite "potential competition, exploitation will occur, just as it does in other markets where no one has a monopoly over the object of exploitation, e.g. the markets for string, milk, and pencils." And none of those things, it should be noted, are protected with exclusive sale rights for any amount of time, much less for decades-long stretches.

    Copyright of course is needed so that originators can earn back their costs and make a decent profit -- that's what provides the incentive to create. But that doesn't mean rights-holders should be able to hold their rights to the point where works are actually removed from the marketplace.

    Heald's paper also looks at how the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act help keep older songs in circulation on YouTube (GOOG). YouTube offers an easy way for copyright holders to make money from the songs they own, even when they've been uploaded by infringers, and thus "satisfy the market of potential listeners" even when the songs aren't otherwise available.