Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 06 Aug 1998 Christopher G. Wren, <cgwren[_at_]wisconsinlaw.com> wrote:
>
> What intrigues me in this discussion, however, is not the
> sleight-of-invisible-hand diversion regarding marginal cost as some
> indication of the health of an intellectual-property regime, but the
> underlying assumption that the current system is somehow extremely
> inefficient and that a new, improved, fat-free, ultra-efficient
> mechanism will produce some intellectual-property nirvana. I think
> that's just dead wrong. The kind of efficiency envisioned in the
> ether of the academy will, I believe, produce devastating results if
> implemented here on earth, and yield an intellectual-property world
> that looks more like "Blade Runner" or "Mad Max" than anything else.

The "new paradigm," as the anti-copyright crowd likes to call it, generally fails to explain several critical economic issues: (A) Who will supply the photocopies when the major libraries have canceled all their purchases (as predicted by Association of Research Libraries statisticians)? (B) How will anyone identify documents for procurement when the electronic databases have narrowed their coverage? (C) Who will maintain information technology when push comes to shove and we describe it as "expensive" instead of "free?"

Foreign sources have emerged as major suppliers of photocopies to the United States. Many bibliographic databases have capped their coverage after decades of aiming for "comprehensive" records. Libraries used to be "free;" since the late 1960s we have been told they are "too expensive."

None of the documents published by the Association of Research Libraries in support of the new paradigm provide any sort of plan, cost-benefit analysis, or experience. The examples that are supposed to demostrate viability (Ginsparg, High-Wire, etc.) are all heavily subsidized.

> In his book COMPLEXITY, Mitchell Waldrop quotes economist Brian
> Arthur as observing that "[a]ll too often, the apparent objectivity
> of cost-benefit analyses is the result of slapping arbitrary numbers
> on subjective judgments, and then assigning the value of zero to the
> things that nobody knows how to evaluate." I think Arthur's right on
> that score, and I think we're seeing similar dynamic her, with a lot
> of "[copyright-related] things that no one knows how to evaluate"
> assumed away as having zero value, and the remaining subjective
> judgments decorated in "the apparent objectivity" of theoretical
> economic analysis. We can certainly predicate intellectual-property
> policy on that kind of analysis, but I think the resulting
> intellectual-property regime will prove far from desirable, and
> much less welcome than anything we have now.

The late Fritz Machlup noted that the value of information generally eluded economists. A Presidential panel in the 1960s warned of focusing on documents rather than content.

Not much has changed. The policy emphasis is on the medium (now information technology) while content goes begging.

What good is the best pipeline when it is dry?

The investment in research is wasted until findings are used.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Sat Aug 08 1998 - 13:35:38 GMT