Re: copyright under stress

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes -- Improving copyright law does seem more sane than both sides grabbing as much as they can for themselves. Government subsidy does seem like a slippery slope, however. Another possibility would be a consortium of libraries and other interested parties forming a foundation for this purpose.

Patricia Roshaven
<roshaven[_at_]acc.fau.edu> Received on Thu Jun 22 2000 - 22:47:25 GMT