Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

From: Dan L Burk <BURKDANL[_at_]shu.edu>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 12:03:20 -0400

On 8/7/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Then you must be against all private enterprise, with all the
> property rights that encourage investing and making profits
> (or losing your shirt).

Nothing posted in this thread supports that assertion, particlularly the loaded language in the first line. Quite the contrary, I have consistently argued in favor of property rights that encourage investment and making profits. I have argued *against* property rights that allow supracompetitive monopoly rents at the expense of the public.

> > 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.
>
> Since when is "breaking even" an incentive to invest?

First, plese note that the language of "breaking even" is yours, not mine, and you appear to be using it in a colloquial sense that inaccurate for this discussion. But, to the extent that you may be referring to the concept of pricing at marginal cost, it has been an incentive since the concept of "investment" was developed -- probably c. 4000 BCE, or even before.

> > > 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?
>
> I wonder why you don't complain about the profits of firms like
> Intel, H-P, Xerox, and IBM?

Perhaps because this is a list about copyright, not about antitrust or about hardware vending?

> Their profits are larger than any publishing company by several
> orders of magnitude -- far beyond "recoupting their investment."

First, as I noted to a previous post in this thread, assuming that your representation is accurate, you are probably confusing accounting profits with economic profits. Second, if the firms in question are doing more than "recouping their investment" then they will either 1) shortly be undercut by a competitor, until either they lower thier price to the marginal cost of production or they go out of business, or 2) they have an unwarranted degree of market power due to some competitive failure, in which case they are subject to regulation under antitrust law to correct the problem.

In either event, the result is consistent with the optimal result I have articulated for copyright. The point is that there is no need to *create* the second situation by granting overextensive copyrights.

---

Dan L. Burk
Seton Hall University
burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu

---

Received on Sat Aug 08 1998 - 15:58:28 GMT