September 23, 2003
Adding Value and the PD Lottery
UPDATED 9/24/03, 6:30 PM
Ernest coins the term “public domain lottery” to describe one possible facet of a CL system. I’m not convinced it would turn out as he says it does.
Think about public domain books available today. Some are just the bare bones of the book, some have explanatory footnotes, some have prefacing essays, and some even combine several books by one author into one volume.
Won’t people still download these different versions based on the valued added to the work? Sure, you might be able to get a book onto a P2P system first. But once someone adds literary criticism to the work, perhaps many will shift to downloading that version.
[added:] …and follow the discussion (this link leads to a clearer version than the comments field) – I’m adding more points in there.
Filed by Derek Slater at 6:15 pm under General news
5 Comments
I’m not sure why that is so. Certainly, some works with additional literary criticism will be downloaded more but, generally, when people are looking for a copy of the work in the public domain, do they care about the additions? When you buy a copy of Mark Twain, do you really base your decision on what obscure English Lit professor wrote an introduction? Or do you base your decision on the size or price?
If I want Mark Twain, I’ll download the first hit on my search engine regardless of the author of the afterward or introduction, unless I am looking for a particular scholar’s work. However, what is more likely: that I want to read Mark Twain, or that I care about a particular scholar’s work on Twain?
Another example: some people want a particular performance of Mozart so the search engine will find that performance for them. But many people just want to hear “The Magic Flute” and don’t particularly care who performs it (as long as it is reasonably competent).
How serious will this problem be? I don’t know, but the idea of tax dollars filling the coffers of people distributing public domain works is somewhat off-putting. I think it has the potential of being serious enough that we should consider what possible responses should be. After all, Pride and Prejudice by Austin sold 110,000 copies last year. That would be a major best seller by most standards. How much money should, for example, Kazaa get for every copy of Pride and Prejudice downloaded from their service? Should they get the same amount as the author of a new book that was downloaded 110,000 times?
I see your point, though I actually have bought PD books based on added value. For instance, even the easiest political philosophy I’ve read drives me crazy if I don’t have some decent introductory and explanatory info. Yeah, I often go to the Net, but I appreciate if it’s actually included in the text.
To brainstorm further:
Let’s say that you’re right about downloading the first hit and you’re right about there only being a few file-sharing/search enginge companies. This would create an interesting level of competition between these companies. If you could provide more PD works than other services, you’d be a more attractive service. Thus, we’d be encouraging more companies to be like the Project Gutenberg or the iArchive. Pretty cool.
The thing is, as exhibited by Project Gutenberg, iArchive, Eric Eldred, and individuals throughout the Net, there already is plenty of incentive to put PD works online. In this context, I think it makes sense to say, why should we pay for this if we can get it for free? or, at the least, why should we pay to the same degree that we do other works? You’re right that it seems odd/unfair/unequal to provide the distributor of Pride and Prejudice the same amount as a bestseller.
Perhaps, then, we might only allow PD works that have been modified or transformed to be registered for payment, because we stillwould want to encourage derivatives and other uses that add value to the product.
Now, if the search engines started competing for who can make the best listing of derivatives (for who, say, could put out the definitive version of P&P with commentary), I’m not sure I’m against having them paid for that. I would, however, want the search engines’ listings to be transparent – if they’re putting their own works listed first, could the FTC require them to identify them?
Additional note: I did assume at the beginning of the above comment that you’re right about everyone using just a few search tools. I think that’s a decent assumption though it’s open to challenge.
One assumption I’m less sure of is: “it is highly likely that the vast majority of shared files of a particular track will have come from only a handful of the people who did the ripping.” I understand your reasoning and believe that it could be true, but I’d like to see some statistical proof. Has anyone done any work on the subject?
One note on your bin Laden hypo: remember that most schemes could pay out differently to derivative makers than to the originators. For instance, Netanel’s scheme wouldn’t give any proceeds to derivative makers. Fisher’s would, but only in relation to how much value was added to the work.
Also, wouldn’t it be some sort of violation to register that video if you didn’t actually make it?
Sorry – repeated a posting and deleted. Ignore.
Yeah, actually, I think that last part is the key. You can only register what you create, and, even if you register a derivative, you wouldn’t get much money (if any) unless you radically altered the original. So the problem of “hijacking” a work is less severe.
But, as far as what you were saying about search engines re-registering works that have already fallen into the public domain – that point still holds. I think it makes the most sense if they’re only remunerated for the value they add.
There are two ways we can do that:
1. We can let anyone register a derivative of a PD work and get 100% of the benefit, as long as they’re actually making a derivative.
2. With regard to adding copyrighted works, Fisher allows people to be remunerated depending on how much of the other work is incorporated. In the case of PD works, we’d focus on that as well as how much was added. This would be pretty tricky. Currently, people who reuse a PD work in a new rap song get the full benefit, and I don’t see any reason why that should not be the case in a CL. However, we wouldn’t necessarily want people to get to register a derivative and get 100% of the value simply for adding a red dot in the corner.
How can we make these distinctions without creating further litigation over transformative uses?