"Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing," answered Holmes
thoughtfully. "It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if
you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in
an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different." (Arthur Conan Doyle)
An early consensus emerged on the limits of evidence and the lack of a smoking gun in copyright. Representatives of the IPO were keen to stress that, particularly in copyright, evidence in general is rare and that stakeholders need not engage in complex econometric modelling. Anecdotal evidence abounds. Andrew Prodger of the British Equity Collecting Society (BECS), noted an excellent example of the television program Edward and Mrs.Simpson. The program distribution since its original broadcast has been severely limited as one actor chose to withhold the license for their performance. The rest of the cast and production team are held-up by a single member in the consensus decision making process created by copyrights. [Merpel asks where she might find more on this case and others?]
|Panel members felt upstaged by Mona|
Like a cat drawn to a ball of string, I thought I'd attempt a Venn diagram (left) of the debate. For economists, quantifiable evidence tends to be preferred. However, evidence in copyright often doesn't exist (or is too costly to collect) or isn't verifiable (or privately held information.) At the intersection of quantifiable, verifiable evidence that exists, we have the economic ideal. Evidence that is quantifiable but doesn't exist is a mythical creature (perhaps the precise value of a copyright?). Evidence that is not quantifiable but exists and is verifiable would be good qualitative evidence. Finally, the intersection of quantifiable evidence that is not verifiable could be considered lobbynomics. Is this what evidence looks like in copyright?
And finally, congratulations and best wishes to Martin Krestchmer who is off to Scotland to head up the new CREATe centre at the University of Glasgow.