Re: copyright under stress

On 11 Jun 2000, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]iz.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/06/2000, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I find it difficult to follow your post. How does copyright
> > > restrict my access to information?
> >
> > Oh, please. You're just jerking me around, yeah?
> >
> > Copyright produces artificial scarcity in order to manufacture
> > "value" in information. It sets economic barriers in the way of
> > access to the information which in turn give rise to geographic and
> > even cryptographic barriers, all of which restrict your and my
> > access.
>
> Oh, I see, you want it all for free.
>
> Sorry for even asking.

This response fails to appreciate that, whether or not you agree with Mr. Byrne's ultimate conclusions about the utility of copyright, his economic analysis is, I think, exactly correct. Copyright restricts access to information, in the sense that it creates scarcity. This is in fact the purpose of copyright. If the copyright owner is unable to control the distribution of copies, the price of the work will inevitably collapse.

The basic idea is that, while the initial investment in the first copy may be quite high, each subsequent copy can be produced quite cheaply. Particularly in the case of digitized information, for which the marginal cost of producing an additional copy is near zero, traditional notions of optimal pricing do not work. The normal concept of supply and demand presumes that supply is by definition finite. If supply can be readily increased with little or no additional cost, for all practical purposes without limit, classical economics tells us that the price per unit will be zero or very nearly so. Obviously, Metallica would not soon get rich this way. To put it less flippantly, authors may not be able to recoup the original cost of production unless the supply can be artificially limited and the price kept well above the marginal per-unit cost of the copies.

Thus, the Constitution (presuming the U.S. copyright model -- residents of other jurisdictions are on their own) grants Congress the authority to provide authors with a monopoly for a limited period of time. An artificial scarcity is created, propping up a non-zero price for each copy. In a very fundamental way, access to the underlying information is restricted by assuring a price substantially greater than the per-unit marginal cost. If I want to hear a particular song, read a particular book, or see a particular movie I will have to purchase or otherwise gain access to one of a pool of artificially scarce copies. This is in fact the whole point. Without restricted access, supply inflates and prices collapse. Authorship is not incentivised, and the public suffers (that's the theory, anyway).

Of course, the trade-off here is that copyright is granted only for a limited time. Thus, the artificially created scarcity, and resulting limited access, is temporary. The public (for whose benefit, you will recall, the copyright is granted) ultimately obtains virtually unlimited access to the information embodied within the protected expression -- assuming that the public still cares.

Happy trails,
Rod

***
Rod McCarvel, Attorney
157 Yesler Way, Suite 514
Seattle, Washington 98104

(206)903-8048
FAX (206)625-0110
<rod[_at_]seanet.com> Received on Wed Jun 14 2000 - 19:35:09 GMT