We previously mentioned Eckhard Höffner research showing how absence of copyright in Germany led to more rather than less output there than in England. This is being picked up by other blogs, here is a post on Kevin Smith's blog. (Thanks to Ruth Lewis for the tip)

Really, this is pretty funny.

You may recall that Eckhard Höffner has been examining the history of copyright in Germany - finding that in its absence there was an explosion of knowledge - that due to the late enforcement of copyright in Germany, Germany emerged from a poor agricultural country in 1800 to the leading science nation in 1900. The German media being more advanced than the U.S. media Der Spiegel,the preeminant German weekly news magazine with a print run of about 1 million, and one of the most widely circulated magazines in Europe has picked up the story.

Explosion of knowledge. Was the industrial rise of Germany caused, because copyright was unknown. If your German is not good you might try Google Translate.

Having trouble with DRM on your ebooks? Try this site. The problem with DRM is it encourages piracy. It can always be removed - but it can be a hassle. So: if you are going to distribute it widely it is worth the effort - and if you take the trouble to do it yourself you are so pissed off that you feel a strong temptation to share it. Irritating your customers hasn't proven a winning business model in the past.

Matt Berninger, "The National"'s vocalist, is quoted in today's New York Times Magazine:

People seemed to fall for us after listening to our records many, many times. The corporate model has collapsed, but small-label bands playing to 200 people a night can pay the bills and raise a family on it. That's why we'll have better and more interesting innovations

Dale Sheldon-Hess writes:

I thought the folks at Against Monopoly might get a kick out of this, if you hadn't already seen it: a well-known and respected mainstream publication off-handedly endorsing copyright "abuse".

The January 2010 issue of Better Homes and Gardens had an article called "25 easy ways to conquer clutter"; number 20 on that list (on page 41) says the following:

"Convert your compact discs into digital music files, either yourself or using a service such as ripdigital.com or riptopia.com. (They give you materials to send in in your CDs, convert them to digital, and burn them on DVDs for you.) Then, donate or* sell the returned CDs.* --Sabrina Soto, host of HGTV's Real Estate Intervention"

(Emphasis added.)

Isn't that technically illegal? Is this an example of a dead-tree publication "getting it", or simply an example of naiveté in the face of the absurdity of copyright?

Ok,music with copyright. Billboard released its list of top money making acts. It doesn't give a systematic breakdown of earnings by category - but it did for Metallica (you know Lars Ulrich, the gas station attendant turned drummer who says he'd never have made the switch without copyright forever)

Along with touring revenue -- the band pulled in $22.8 million from 55 arena shows reported to Boxscore that drew more than 968,000 fans -- Metallica sold 694,000 albums in 2009. The majority of those sales came from its Rick Rubin-produced 2008 release, "Death Magnetic" (297,000). Album sales revenue totaled $1.6 million. And most of Metallica's track download earnings came from its 1991 hit "Enter Sandman," which sold 450,000.

Hmmm...think it would make a lot of difference to the world if they lost the $1.6 million from the albums? Without copyright they'd only make $22.8 million from touring...You might almost think it would be worth it to them to give the recorded music away for free to promote their concerts...

Talk last week by Larry Lessig in Amsterdam. (via Jeff Racine)

Via my WUSTL student Dirk Doebler, news of a video by an unknown Uruguayan producer Fede Alvarez. All $300 worth. Modern technology empowers the creative. If not for the dead-hand of the copyright lobby trying to keep everything ever made in the past under lock and key (think "sound track" or "mashup" or "sampling") this would be the age of golden creativity. With plenty of money for the Fede Alvarez's of the world too.

This is the true cost of copyright law: we have but a pale reflection of the golden age of creativity that we could have.

Does filesharing reduce profits of the music industry? This paper claims so, and that should not be that much of a surprise. However, it also argues that filesharing is welfare improving because it leads to more competition and thus lower prices. Remember, ultimately it is the consumer that counts when computing a surplus, not just music industry profits.

HT: Economic Logic