Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 05 Aug 1998 Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 8/4/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > If (I say *if*) the market is functioning properly, manufacturers,
> > > landlords, lawyers, and the rest should be naturally pushed by
> > > competitive pressure to lower their prices to marginal cost. But
> > > that's because they deal in congestible goods and services.
> > > Intangible goods are different because we have intervened in the
> > > first place -- by creating copyrights, patents, and so on -- to
> > > artificially inflate the price above marginal cost. If we're going
> > > to do that, we shouldn't do it any more than we have to -- and we
> > > generally don't have to past the point necessary to induce creation
> > > of the work.
> >
> > This half right, assuming there is no intangible value to "location"
> > of real estate, to the "reputation" of a manufacturer or lawyer,
> > or a perception of "scarcity," of goods and services offered for
> > sale.
>
> Your examples are interesting, but inapposite. Location is of course
> congestible -- you can't have an infinite number of real estate
> parcels in the same location (or even two).

Location doesn't mean a thing unless you can define it, fence it, and defend your property rights. Landlord do these things and charge rents when they can far in excess of their costs. They may also lose money on their investment.

How is this so different from copyright? Are you trying to argue that the possibility of making copies, like an unfenced lawn, implies some sort of permission? Should the possibility of entry and use dilute the value of your real property?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Fri Aug 07 1998 - 23:23:06 GMT