I think the point ofg the post is "What scheme would
you favor?"
It is easy to poke hole in the current scheme because we know so much about it. I can't tell you what is wrong or right about your scheme because I know nothing about it. Share and we will see if you get any converts!
Keith
--- "M. Pollack" <mpollack[_at_]memphis.edu> wrote:
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:46 GMT