Re: The good fight

No one is suggesting that "we" junk copyright. Just that it not be bloated. Reasonable minds may differ, but IMHO (and I am far from alone) the extent of control currently given copyright holders is very bloated.
Unlike tangibles, furthermore, the economically minded agree that social welfare is enhanced by a lesser degree of control. See, for example, the Posner and Landes article circulated in the most SSRN updates -- arguing for requiring reregistration of copyrights at the end of each short period so that "Copyright" does not unnecessarily tie up works which are no longer earning royalties. While I would favor a different scheme, I mention this one merely to underline P&L's economic conclusion that long-term copyright for many works is not social beneficial.

Edward Barrow wrote:
>
> 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 ***

-- 
Malla Pollack
Visiting Associate Professor
University of Memphis, Law
mpollack[_at_]memphis.edu