On 7/31/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/28/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why wouldn't someone exploiting creative work pay for
> > > rights if the rights are so valuable? It is common
> > > practice in the publishing and entertainment industry
> > > around the world.
> >
> > They will, but why should they have to? The point is that the
> > consumer is better off if the good can be made available for
> > free, or nearly free -- and it can be, once it is created.
> > Consequently, consumers of the good should only have to pay for
> > it to the extent necessary to induce the creator to create it
> > in the first place. 100 or more years of monopoly rents are
> > probably not necessary to induce creation -- something less than
> > that will probably suffice.
>
> Why should we have to pay for water?
I can think of a number of reasons, most of which are irrelevant to this discussion -- because unlike intellectual property, water is rival, congestible, and excludable -- in other words, it cannot be supplied to the consumer at a marginal cost near zero. So I'm having some difficulty seeing the point in your comparison.
> Your argument seems to be penny-wise. The value of information is
> often difficult to assess. But it is clear that knowledge (A) saves
> other resources and (B) enables the user economically. It also
> benefits the author via recognition as well as direct payment of
> royalties, fees, etc.
If recognition were sufficient incentive to induce production of knowledge -- which to some extent it appears to be in the scientific community -- then we might have no need for copyright at all. But not all communities follow Mertonian norms.
> What is so objectionable about publishers underwriting dissemination
> and recouping their investment as in any other business?
As far as I know, nothing. My argument, reproduced above, is that any monopoly rent beyond "recouping their investment" is both inefficient and socially objectionable.
> What is it that singles out "content-oriented" publishers for
> criticism while "conduit-oriented" information technology firms are
> encouraged to make all the profits they can?
I'm afraid that I don't follow this question at all, particularly the loaded language in the last line. Can you explain yourself further?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT