Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 19 Aug 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 8/19/98, Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think you're taking an over-literal approach to the question of
> > shared use of land. While it is true that no two physical objects
> > can occupy the exact same spot of physical space at the exact same
> > time, it is also true that land can be shared.
>
> And the more it is shared, the more congested it becomes. Or, as
> Woody Allen put it, space is nature's way of keeping everything from
> happening to you at once.
>
> This is not true of copyrightable works -- they never become
> congested. They are not private goods.

Without fences, walls, and other artifacts of property, there would be enough real estate for everyone to share. The fact that two people cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time has only precipitated "time shares" as an investment opportunity.

Intellectual property deserves equal protection, even if the protections are appropriately different. I agree intellectual property has some differences, but not enough to justify piracy in the name of the public interest. The fact is that we have substantial evidence that the interest (market) in any intellectual property is clearly finite.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 21:51:46 GMT