Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On Sat, 08 Aug 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 8/7/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 05 Aug 1998 Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> It is unclear to me how this is responsive to my statement above,
> unless you are indicating that we have reached agreement. The fact
> that "location," which is tied to real property, can as you observe
> be fenced, indicates that it is a private good, and is congestible as
> I mentioned.

You are a prisoner of "congestible" terminology. Property rights in terms of "what's mine" and "what's yours" are very clear. In short, you can't squat on my turf and you can't publish my prose without my permission.

> > Landlord do these things and charge rents when they can far in
> > excess of their costs. They may also lose money on their
> > investment.
>
> I am once again skeptical of your broad generalization about what
> "landlords do." But to the extent that they may be able to charge
> rents in excess of their costs, it is because land is unique, as I
> have repeatedly stated, and creative works are not.

If creative works were not unique, who would want to publish them? Who would want to make copies? The idea that creative works are not unique and valuable went out with the Philistines (12th C. BC).

> > 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?
>
> You seem to have a difficult time with the concept that intellectual
> goods are infinitely reproducable at zero cost, but land is not.

Then it's OK, because it costs you nothing, for me to inhabit your yard, swim in your pool, use your john, love your wife, and tell tales around the neighborhood.

> Perhaps I am not explaining it well. Richard Epstein does a nice
> job in a recent essay:
>
> "The person who has internalized the labor should, as a first
> approximation, be allowed to internalize the gain. That statement
> becomes an exaggeration with intellectual property, but as an
> instinct it works most powerfully with land, where only one person
> will ever be in that position to internalize the gain in question:
> no matter how hard one labors, you cannot "copy" the crops."

Epstein apparently does not realize that someone can certainly steal some crops far below the cost of producing them. Stealing "only what I can eat" makes no impact on the market and so, by your IP theory, should be legal. Then I should be able to feed family, then friends, etc.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 14:53:38 GMT