Re: copyright under stress

On Tue, Jun 20, 2000, Patricia Roshaven <roshaven[_at_]fau.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
> This question of scarcity is interesting. Our economic system is
> based on supply and demand. Until the Internet, supply and price
> were set by publishing companies, based on a number of things,
> including price of materials, labor costs, demand, etc. Is this
> "artificial scarcity?" With the coming of the Internet, supply
> is no longer in the hands of publishers. Consumers are suddenly
> saying publishers are capitalistic money-mongers who are setting
> up "artificial scarcity" because unlimited supply is now within
> everyone's reach. This is equivalent to expecting our wildlife
> to adjust to developers encroaching on their hunting grounds and
> blaming the wildlife for not evolving fast enough. The Internet
> has changed our environment so rapidly that publishers are
> scrambling to adapt, sometimes in ways that are not good for
> anyone because they see their way to make a living being taken
> away in ways that are clearly illegal. Are we willing to help
> these people adapt so they can win also? or shall publishers join
> bread lines, along with others who are now out of work? Is this
> what we mean by liberty and equality for all?

Thanks for examining more closely my term "artificial scarcity." Surely you are right in pointing out that the normal state of supply and demand with tangible goods is just "scarcity" and that the "artificial" part of it is not necessary. (For example, in times of huge agricultural surplus, farmers have dumped grain on the statehouse steps--consumers consider that a sin and a waste I suppose, but it is really just an attempt by the supply and demand system to get some disaster relief from the govt. to maintain a little more scarcity.))

The Stanford economist Roger Norr has pointed out that if the scholarly journals that are peer-reviewed could be easily copied, then the journals might not have resources to maintain their high quality, considering the high pre-production costs. The ease of copying (in a state of no "scarcity") might tend to drive out the good in favor of the cheap-to-produce. But his point only raises the question whether or not the present business model of producing these journals is efficient, given the inefficiencies of distribution. Perhaps the peer review system needs some better means of funding than purely royalties from distribution. In such cases, one might imagine that it is similar to the farmers trying to get government relief. Most likely farmers, consumers, and the government would all like to have a stable, efficient system, instead of allowing prices to boom and bust, especially for goods that are necessary to life, as for example food. So perhaps electronic journals should have some government funding so as to relieve the burden on libraries, and thereby "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

I can't say if that is a better solution. But I do hope that whatever system we move toward, does attempt to maintain a balance between copyright holders and the public domain. But today some claim we face other alternatives: widespread "piracy" or publishers encrypting "pay-per-view" works. I think we ought to explore improving copyright law instead.

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf