Re: actuaries and copyright extension

John Noble writes:
>
> This is the nub of it, I guess. Its the fundamental point on which our
> points of view diverge. And all of the debate boils down to 'original
> works are public goods' vs. 'original works are private property.'
>

Well, from an economic point of view, works of intellectual property simply *are* public goods, if by that you mean goods that exhibit the characteristics of nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption. In this, they clearly differ from tangible property.

Regardless, one could choose to treat works of intellectual property in the same way as tangible property. Historically we haven't done so, and I don't think it is a particularly good idea. But there is certainly a growing group out there that thinks of them in that way.

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu Received on Mon Apr 22 1996 - 19:18:44 GMT