On 8/13/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/10/98, Albert Henderson <NobleStation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > You are making unwarranted assumptions about what *should* be
> > yours and what *should* be mine. I can squat on your turf and
> > publish your prose if we write the law to say that I can (and, in
> > fact, we have so written it, under conditions like adverse
> > posession or fair use).
>
> It seems to me that you have been making assumptions what the
> copyright law "should" allow.
Yes. They just don't happen to be question-begging assumptions.
> The expansion of unauthorized copying was precipitated by the
> photocopier and photo-offset lithography, not any intrinsic economic
> value.
The "expansion of unauthorized copying" was precipitated by the printing press. I have no idea what you mean by "intrinsic economic value" or how it is relevant to the subject under discussion.
> > Publication and copying generate as much of the creative work as
> > we wish. We can't publish or copy land. You have a tendency to
> > forget that.
>
> You can use land in various ways without consuming it.
No, in fact, you can't, at least insofar as economic consumption is concerened. However, if you have discovered a way for two users to occupy the same space at the same time, I understand that the Nobel Physics Committee is actively soliciting nominations. You'll be a shoe-in.
> Land ownership includes a bundle of rights that can be transferred,
> licensed, shared, or sold.
Yes -- and your point is... ? (We were talking about public goods, remember? The issue is what the optimal bundle of rights should be, not whether they exist in some cases.)
> The value of land depends on legal protection of ownership. Without
> such protections, no one would invest.
In fact this is not universally true, but is more efficient in many cases.
> It's not so different.
It is completely different. In the case of real property, we are attempting to allocate usage of a scarce resource that already exists. In the case of intellectual property, we are attempting to encourage creation of a resource that will NOT be scarce once it comes into existence.
> Speaking of forgetting, don't forget the conversion of open range
> by the Homestead Act. Defining and securing property ownership
> was clearly preferable to unfettered sharing.
In fact, there is a rather large literature on land usage in which sharing, not necessarily unfettered, is preferable to private ownership. But even assuming that private ownership was preferable in the case of North American "open" lands (which were actually claimed and/or in use by native Americans) what has that to do with public goods?
> > We cannot both engage in those activities at the same time. We
> > can, of course, both tell tales around the neighborhood at the same
> > time, making it the only example of a public good that you have
> > offered.
>
> You have such a small yard. When it gets too congested, we could
> just take turns.
Please see my suggestion above about the Nobel prize in physics.
> > > Epstein apparently does not realize that someone can certainly
> > > steal some crops far below the cost of producing them.
> >
> > Yes, but in that case, the person who grew them has less. No one
> > can "steal" your intellectual property, because you still have it.
> > They can only infringe you exclusive rights to it.
>
> Are you saying that artists and authors do not lose income from
> infringements of copyrighted property?
You have such a astonishing talent for misinterpretation -- have you considered going into comedy?
I think if you will read the exchange above carefully, you will find that 1) I indicated that farmers would have fewer crops if somone did as you suggested and stole part of them, and 2) that this condition does not apply to creative works. I made no statement as to whether artists and authors lose income from infringement of copyrighted works.
Were I to make such a statement, it would be that artists and authors may or may not lose revenue due to infringment of intellectual property, and that the question of lost revenue is quite different from the question of lost income, which artists and authors also may or may not lose due to infringement of intellectual property.
And that in either event, any revenue or income which artists and authors gain due to the existence of copyright comes at public expense, which is sometimes a worthwhile trade and sometimes not.
> > > Stealing "only what I can eat" makes no impact on the market
> >
> > That statement is obviously false (and I cannot resist the
> > obligatory cite to Wickard v. Filburn)
>
> Just so. You have made my point. Thank you.
I am suprised to learn that your point was that private goods are easily distinguishable from public goods, since you have shown a complete disregard for the distinction up to now. However, your conclusion...
> Let all copiers pay royalties.
is completely unsupported by any rationale you have offered, even the moderately relevant ones, and particularly not since you apparently now agree that private goods are not public goods.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT