RE: The good fight

On Monday, September 23, 2002 3:56 PM, M. Pollack [SMTP:mpollack[_at_]memphis.edu] wrote:
> Ah! That is the whole point! Deserve should have a lot to do with it.
> And deserve always comes up when someone wants to change or strech the
> doctrine. The only reason that the market "rules" so much is that we
> (human beings) allow this to happen. The market is shaped by existing
> law and does not have to make high protectionist choices. If a multitude
> of basically good persons (esp. attorney & politicians) in combination
> form an institution where "deserving" is not material, we need to reform
> the institution-- perhaps by insisting that each actor take
> responsibility for her own choices. Or to quote the great sage Hillel:
> If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But being for myself alone,
> what am I? And if not now, when?

I don't think this argument is particular to copyright material, but to the whole of economics. The concept of the deserving "just price" - - for any good (different from the market price) is extremely difficult; no-one has yet found a way to determine such a thing objectively, although we all have our own subjective notions of what it should be. The countries of the former Soviet block tried non-market methods of determining prices, without a great deal of success.

Copyright arguably increases the market price, for everyone except the first purchaser of a work. But in the absence of copyright, the first purchaser must cover all the author's costs of time, materials and risk. Private patronage by the wealthy, and state and commercial sponsorship are all possible alternatives to copyright; but throughout the many months of these exchanges I have yet to see the anti-copyright camp either promoting these alternatives or suggesting others.

Edward Barrow
New Media Copyright Consultant
http://www.copyweb.co.uk/
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for information about the legal status of this email *** Received on Tue Sep 24 2002 - 06:39:06 GMT