Malla Pollack wrote "No one is suggesting that we junk copyright." I can
only assume that, like many users of this list, she hasn't been reading
Sterling Stoudenmire's postings.
Robert C. Cumbow
Graham & Dunn PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
Seattle, WA 98101-2390
direct 206.340.9619
fax 206.340.9599
rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
http://www.grahamdunn.com
Big law firm experience
without the big law firm experienceŽ
-----Original Message-----
"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
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection.
If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
and then delete it. Thank you.
Received on Fri Sep 27 2002 - 15:34:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:46 GMT