Re: droit de suite

On 04/06/2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2000, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> wrote:
> >
> > In the absence of copyright on the text, I doubt you'd _have_ to
> > pay much more than the cost of the paper and ink for a copy.
>
> You're assuming that individual publishers will generously waive
> any profit, which isn't likely to happen in a capitalist society.
> You might want to check the prices for editions of Shakespeare
> plays in any bookstore. It's well in excess of "the cost of the
> paper and ink."

That depends on the edition. For most editions of Shakespeare, the publishers have added ORIGINAL material, in the form of extensive notes and commentary by scholars or others (see, e.g., the Folger Shakespeare Library editions). That is exactly the kind of creativity that the copyright law is attempting to encourage; so they should be entitled to sell those editions at a handsome profit.

If, on the other hand, you buy an edition with virtually no original material added, it costs a lot less. In addition to the cost of the paper and ink, there is the labor in compiling the edition, binding, and distribution costs. And yes, the publisher and bookseller make a small profit. But because there is open competition in editions of Shakespeare, they can't simply raise the price to unreasonable levels. The absence of royalties benefits the public, because the lack of exclusivity requires publishers to compete either on the basis of low price, or on the basis of added features.

The above reasoning makes sense to me, because it corresponds with my experience. You, of course, may disagree; and you may have counter-examples in mind. What is desperately needed is EMPIRICAL work on the benefits of the public domain, so that courts can make decisions based on solid evidence, instead of individual intuition about what happens in the real world. In the absence of such evidence, the courts will simply continue to selectively rely upon the anecdotal evidence presented at trial that corresponds with their own pre-existing views.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 18:39:18 GMT