Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 98-08-04, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> As far as I know, nothing. My argument ... is that any monopoly
> rent beyond "recouping their investment" is both inefficient and
> socially objectionable.
 

Dan,

No problem in disallowing profit if it's to be across the board. But you seem to be promoting the idea that favored groups are allowed to make a profit and disfavored groups are not.

Thus, a creative person is only allowed to "recoup their investment," and you don't even seem willing to allow them to make a living wage or support a family besides. But whoever takes what has been created--and has NO investment in it to recoup--is allowed to make any profit on the created item that the market will bear.

I also understand you to be saying that a company is allowed to make a profit, but the landlord who rents them their business premises is not. Doctors aren't allowed to do more than recoup the cost of going to medical school and paying rent on their offices, etc.

Very unusual economic theory, and I'm surprised you don't distinguish between self-employment income and profit. Could you explain this further?

Pat Sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Tue Aug 04 1998 - 17:23:50 GMT