Discussions About Scarcity vs. Abundance In Copyright From A Century Ago Sound Just Like Those Today
from the history-repeats-itself dept
A reader by the name of Shadow-Slider points us to a fascinating report from a 1897 Copyright Commission in Great Britain in which the report points out how content is different than real property because of the difference between scarcity and abundance. It sounds very much like what we discuss here -- just well over a century ago.Some of the witnesses whose evidence has been received by Your Majesty's Commission have urged the claim of authors to perpetual copyright, on the ground that the right of an author to property in his published works is as complete and extends as far as the right of any person to any property whatever.Apparently my own thoughts on this stuff is accidentally derivative of what came way before...
If this analogy were admitted, it appears to me that it would be difficult to dispute the claim of an author to perpetual copyright; but I venture to submit that the claim of an author to a right of property in his published works rests upon a radical economic fallacy, viz., a misconception of the nature of the law of value.
The necessity which is recognize in all civilised societies of conferring rights of private or personal property arises from the limited supply of that for which there is an unlimited demand. It is only from a limitation of supply that there can be any value in exchange.
But supply may be limited either by natural or artificial causes.
Wherever supply is limited by natural causes it is necessary in the public interest to limit the demand, by investing the possessor of the subject of it with proprietary rights, for without them the progressive increase of an unlimited demand operation on a limited supply would lead to the dissolution of society. To whatever extent these rights partake, as they often must, of the character of a monopoly, they do so in virtue of attributes derived from the nature of things, which may be regretted, but must be accepted as inevitable, and which the law is therefore compelled to recognise.
There is no such necessity in the case of those objects which are useful or necessary for mankind of which supply is unlimited. In that which is absolutely unlimited, in the air, in sunlight, in the forces of nature, such as heat, electricity, magnetism, &c., there is no natural exchangeable value, and therefore no property; that which, although absolutely unlimited in itself, nevertheless exceeds all probable or possible demands in exchange, there can be little or no value, and little or no property, e.g., in the sea, in the water of large or unfrequented streams, in the game of a wild country, or in the fish of the sea. It is in fact scarcity which creates value, and renders property necessary. Property exists in order to provide against the evils of natural scarcity. A limitation of supply by artificial causes, creates scarcity in order to create property. To limit that which is in its nature unlimited, and thereby to confer an exchangeable value on that which, without such interference, would be the gratuitous possession of mankind, is to create an artificial monopoly which has no warrant in the nature of things, which serves to produce scarcity where there ought to be abundance, and to confine to the few gifts which were intended for all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1897, abundance, copyright, economics, history, scarcity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But people never independently come up with similar ideas, which is why IP needs protection. Otherwise, no one would ever come up with any ideas at all and content and innovation would dry up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Reporting and or otherwise providing information to a third party via means of either verbal, written, read, painting sculptures or otherwise anything in a 2 or 3 dimensional form for any reason other than to promote the progresssss of any legitimate artist and or display a true representation..."
That ones mine- it means I saddle your lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1897 UK document in public domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1897 UK document in US public domain
But not if Sonny Bono had had his way: forever minus a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The availability of energy for us to convert into electricity on this planet is functionally unlimited. We're just letting the moneyed interests screw us right now. That's true for the vast majority of all current scarcities - they are artificially induced ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wouldn't the money to "do it yourself" be counted as a real scarcity? I'd love to set up a solar array all over my land, but the dollars to do it... oy!
Or am I missing the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So back to the topic at hand. Energy is abundant. The universe is literally made of energy. All matter is made of energy. It's the methods of capturing and transporting it that involve scarcities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's still amusing with fish and wild game, though :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could learn a lot if you actually paid attention, rather than just patting yourself on the back for figuring out something that was already long since figured out. I can't wait to hear that you invented coffee next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You also shouldn't call them shill bags of crap. I prefer calling them: T-Shirts in a Tote Bag!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC Shill is at it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC Shill is at it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC Shill is at it again.
Should I mention that Mike conveniently choses what is and what is not scarce in order to fit his ideals? Should I mention that he fails to look at what is really scarce in the art world (new work) and instead concentrates only on the distribution of copies end of things?
We could discuss how he thinks that personal time with an artist is somehow valuable, but that the time the artists spends creating new works is somehow unimportant, the there is no scarcity of works in play. Their time is scarce, it seems, but their works and the time required to make them are not.
I could go on about how he rags on sites like the NYT for putting up paywalls, even though their content is both scarce and unique? Or how he hates on the idea of subscription websites, while profiting from the idea with the "crystal ball" area or whatever it is called here on Techdirt?
I could also point out that the very things he sells as scarce (like limited edition t-shirts and hoodies) are artificially scarce at best. The limits of each item are arbitrarily set, based on a desire to make people like you think they are getting something special, all the while selling a $5 t-shirt for many times it's true value.
Even in a world of unlimited digital distribution, the original content is incredibly scarce and valuable. It is what people pay for, not a collection of 1s and 0s, but the scarce original content. Getting stuck narrowly focusing on distribution and forgetting the true value is perhaps the biggest sin.
Now, how about you actually add something other than insults to the discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
1) Example?
2) Again, example?
3) The crystal ball isn't a paywall or subscription. It is an added bonus, and the people buying are allowed to determine whether or not it is worth the money. That seems to be an argument you don't understand. Consumers should be allowed to make their own decisions on what is worth their money, not the artist and definitely not large corporations.
4) see point #3, but as a matter of fact all t-shirts costs $5 to make(or less). It's called making a profit. I'm not going to say Mike is doing something wrong when every retailer in the US does the exact same thing.
5) No one is saying that making stuff doesn't take time, money, sweat and blood. What we are saying is that prices set arbitrarily, and monopolies set indefinitely are wrong. People should be allowed to choose what price they think fair (and the fact that "piracy" was/is rampant tells me that the music and movie industry hasn't hit what people consider fair) and artists and businesses should not be allowed to lock up culture(copyright,trademark) and knowledge(patents) forever. In the end that will kill humanity's future.
And, frankly, humanity's future is more important than any artist or corporation making money.
But I'm sure your rose colored glasses just read blah, blah, blah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
No moron, what is scarce is the goodwill of people, they won't pay you for being a jackass, they won't pay you to be and aggressive punk, they won't pay you for being a dick.
That is why nobody buys music anymore, that is why people stop going to theaters and live concerts, because you people are just douches.
That is why labels will die and anybody who sides with them will suffer the consequences of it.
Have a nice bankruptcy filling, because you ain't getting my money ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
You might want to try not speaking, because each time you do, you spew ignorance.
Should I mention that Mike conveniently choses what is and what is not scarce in order to fit his ideals?
I do not. The definition of what is and is not scarce is pretty clear in economics, and I have not changed it. You have. It's simple. Is the marginal cost of making another copy zero? Yes? It's not scarce. Is the marginal cost greater than zero? Yes. It is scarce. That's all there is to it.
Why do you lie?
Should I mention that he fails to look at what is really scarce in the art world (new work) and instead concentrates only on the distribution of copies end of things?
Also not true. I have pointed out, repeatedly, that the creation of new works is a scarcity.
Why do you lie?
We could discuss how he thinks that personal time with an artist is somehow valuable, but that the time the artists spends creating new works is somehow unimportant, the there is no scarcity of works in play. Their time is scarce, it seems, but their works and the time required to make them are not.
Not true. You are, of course, confusing value and scarcity here, along with multiple other things. But all we're doing is explaining the basic economics that you are ignorant of. It's not that the time to create something is not valuable or unimportant. It is not. In fact, despite your lies, we have explained how and why it is important. However, basic economics -- the kind you ignore -- explains why you cannot successfully, long-term, charge for such goods after they are created and making new copies has a marginal cost of zero.
I could go on about how he rags on sites like the NYT for putting up paywalls, even though their content is both scarce and unique?
Content is not scarce. Again, go to the definition above. See it? Right. That's why you're wrong.
Or how he hates on the idea of subscription websites, while profiting from the idea with the "crystal ball" area or whatever it is called here on Techdirt?
I'm not against subscriptions. Why do you lie? I've explained how charging for access can make plenty of sense. What does not make sense is locking up content which is not scarce. Notice that with whatever we do with Techdirt, we do not lock up the content?
Your failure to understand what I say and what I do... and then to pretend I have said or done things different only reflects on your near total inability to comprehend certain subjects.
I could also point out that the very things he sells as scarce (like limited edition t-shirts and hoodies) are artificially scarce at best.
Again, a product with a marginal cost greater than zero is scarce. It is not an artificial scarcity. This is basic economics. You should learn some. Of course, you've been posting on this site for years, and we've suggested you take an econ class in the past, but you prefer to be ignorant. It's funny.
Even in a world of unlimited digital distribution, the original content is incredibly scarce and valuable.
Again, learn the economic definition. It'll make you look less stupid.
Now, how about you actually add something other than insults to the discussion?
Hilarious. Every single thing you wrote above was wrong. And you complain that someone else is not adding to the conversation.
Dude, seriously. For your own good. Learn some basic economics, or quiet down. You're making yourself look like a fool, and you can't really be that clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
Once you let "marcus" and a few of the other monkeys post, this place pretty much went downhill anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
Sorry, I forgot how profoundly ignorant I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
You would consider that person a fan? I think that even if Mike's business model focused on page views then they would be more of a liability than a fan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
We have absolutely no problem with anyone willing to engage in reasoned discussion.
However, if you state something from a position of ignorance, are shown how and why you are wrong, and then continues to spew ignorance, do not be surprised if people call you on it.
We're open to all opinions, but if you get your facts wrong, we're going to call you on it. That's very much about connecting with your fans.
People who purposely come here to lie and states falsehoods are not fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
Assuming he's the same person I'm assuming he is (he's changed logins on a regular basis, finally not logging in altogether, in a pathetic attempt to hide that he's the same poster), I'm yet to see him post a valid point, let alone in vite discussion with those points. He's attacked me on a regular basis as "pirate", he ignores any facts that contradict his preconceived notions, then runs off to another thread when proven conclusively wrong.
Those "minions" looking for "fodder" are actually people trying to discuss very valid and very important points about the way culture is consumed. Doing what he does in response is idiotic at best. These are not the actions of a healthy individual, and he derails any honest discussion. Most regular posters don't agree with Mike 100% of the time, and it's very possible to see honest debate in these threads. But, when this troll turns up, everyone forgets discussion of the facts at hand and proceed to debunk his moronic and inaccurate rantings.
It's sad, because it devalues discussion here. But, I'm as guilty of it as anyone else, and I can give a good reason - I don't want casual readers to be taken in by his lies and distortions. I wonder what his excuse for making them in the first place is?
"He is a scarcity, as there are not many who would face your crew on a daily basis."
Mike's "crew" is, I presume, made up of people like me: fed up consumers tired of having to jump through hoops to access content, and willing to discuss alternatives to the now-unworkable traditional business models.
The fact is that the content companies have been making a lot of mistakes, and have been making them for over a decade. People like me want to discuss these mistakes and workable alternatives but, again, he makes it difficult. This is not something that should be commended.
"Love the way you connect with fans."
Given that at least one of his alternative logins was most probably "the anti-Mike", a login created solely to contradict everything Mike says no matter how logically or provably correct it was, that's hardly a "fan". If you want to see how he connects with actual "fans", take a look at the weekly posts he invites regular posters and the way he regularly joins in on the conversation here, for examples.
"Sorry, I forgot how profoundly ignorant I am."
You've written a paragraph defending one of the site's most notorious trolls, who devalues every thread he posts in. You might be missing some knowledge about the real situation if you think that's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
It is important to remember that behind every commenter fitting the stereotype of an internet troll there is a person, who may be very troubled. That seems far more likely than the apparently prevalent theory that everyone is a shill. The competing theory would be that non-troubled people actually get a kick out of wasting everyone else's time, but I have trouble believing that anyone could get sufficient pleasure out of such a tediously pointless task (I certainly don't get pleasure from replying to them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
So, aren't people here being kind to presume that those people are paid to act in such a pointless and unproductive, hateful way? Given that the alternative is that they're sad, lonely, pathetic people whose only joy appears to be derailing honest discussion among people they disagree with (for often nebulous and stupid reasons), isn't that a kind of a complimentary assumption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
I tend to think that being an asshole because of greed is worse than just being an asshole. Maybe you're right in that they could be desperate for cash for a nobler purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
Do I get a medal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
We could make you a nice organ grinder monkey hat if you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Rant mode engaged*
" You know, the type of scarcity that makes the movie industry go."
And here's the thing, the major thing that people have been harping on for the past THIRTEEN years since the DMCA has been going on...
The artificial scarcity is going to move away. It's going to shift. It's going to go poof because of technological breakthroughs that no one industry can predict.
You have the movie industry and the movie theater industry as the two main examples. There is about to be a very great upheaval because of the various competing factors. I'll name just a few:
MPAA - caters only to the big guys. But if you're an indie, you're going to be less and less inclined to go to a big company that only looks at you for revenue. The rating system may stay but it's less of a reason for a person to go to the MPAA for a movie rating if they can just post it on the internet.
Movie theater - What you've FAILED to realize is that the sales of all of those Sony Bravias, the Samsung Smart Series, the Pioneer 3d TVs? That's a little thing called competition. Home theater is replacing the 2D. The 3D might be up for a little while but you need to really think about this... Will 3D sustain the industry for long? No, no it will not. They will have to evolve yet again.
In both, there are ways for them to sustain their markets which you ACs don't seem to realize when you're spouting off rhetoric at the mouth.
For the MPAA, they need to dump the "customers are stupid" routine, cater to the indies, and realize that the internet is their greatest marketing tool, not their greatest enemy. They hate piracy. So WHAT? After 10 years, their profits have stabilized at ~1.35 bn every year. They make a lot of money. Controlling the web will NOT bring back the indies that don't want to work with them. It WON'T bring new revenue streams to them. It's four corporations versus the rest of the world. If you want to get technical, since GE owns parts of all of them, it's damn near one corp, to rule them all! They need to realize that newer media is being created Daily without their assistance.
Did any of them make The Guild? How about Red vs. Blue? Did they make any of the webcomics based on Final Fantasy, Half-Life, Jack Valenti's Mom or any other source of content creation that they would love to get their greedy little paws on to sanction the ever loving crap out of? No, no they did not. So they're bleeding money, artists will leave, and eventually they'll be left to their own devices for their works with little relevance. So they should play nice.
The movie theater industry. As I said, it has competition and doesn't realize it. I'll assume you already understand the theater industry so as to spare you more reading time. Still, Mike says new business models and here's a few freebies:
1) Allow more choice of movies in movie theaters. This one says that technically a movie is on loan and can't be shown after so many days. That's BS. There's also the very real FACT that smaller studios can't compete for national airtime when IMAX or Hollywood studios only plays "blockbusters".
2) More food choices. A movie theater wants my time? Make it an experience I won't forget! Stay ahead of the home theater business. If you're offering the same thing that I can get at home, there's a problem!
3) Forward thinking. Chris Dodd is a morally bankrupt, dangerously powerful idiot. There, I said it. You want butts in seats? Lower the damn prices of movies. Sell DVDs at releases. Stop thinking in windows and think of how to make the experience better for the customer, not worse.
I'd go on, but that should be enough for you to digest. What's amazing is that people actually sit here to type about something they know absolutely nothing about. To that, you gain my ire. How about instead of little quibbles, you focus on how to make arguments that progress us forward to the next 100 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Rant mode engaged*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Rant mode engaged*
I'm wondering if people are actually running mini theatres from home yet. I can imagine that as they tend to do with watching sports, someone will come along and try to make it illegal if it becomes common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The kind of artificial scarcity you are referring to was one of the reasons the commons revolted so many many times, that is why the queen didn't have the balls to institute a full blown monopoly again but made a little one and called it copyrights because she was afraid of the commons.
Now you want to institute that again, that is just history repeating itself, lets just hope that this time you people don't get your necks ringed though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where was my troll sign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(actually, that one is mine... well sorta... you see im one of those freetards that cant seem to make my own stuff and have to steal from hard working avatar designer firms. i figure i am singlehandedly responsible for the loss of over 92.381 trillion dollars and the sacking of 40,000 jobs in the US, denmark and sadly three individuals in Naru which equates to 26.7% of their entire workforce meaning i also have singlehandedly tanked an entire country)
/on the other hand.. its late and i just may need more sleep is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idea!
It's right next to the "adds nothing but calling people shills" button.
douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idea!
I agree, but your use of interesting parting shots suggests you don't agree with yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mirror Images
In particular: if supply is unlimited, there is no need to regulate demand. But if supply is, in fact, limited, then demand must be regulated in some fashion to apportion those scarce supplies.
We see this when non-obvious natural limits are identified, and supplemented with significantly more obvious artificial restrictions in an attempt to prevent "Tragedy of the Commons" scenarios (where a resource is exploited to the point of destruction, meaning that nobody benefits any longer).
The hard part (and the one many folks in the legacy media industries in particular struggle to come to grips with) is identifying cases (such as creative expression) where there really aren't underlying natural limits.
As long as humans continue to have leisure time (i.e. time not solely devoted to meeting basic physical needs like access to food, water and shelter), we will indulge both our own desire to create and our desire to be entertained by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An authors life time cannot be changed by any copyright-like law, and is generally irrelevant to the supply of a particular book except out of transferral of rights and any changes in policy in applying those rights once they've been transferred to the new owner.
As a matter of course, humans create by their very nature, so yes, technically supply of new content being produced is effectively unlimited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When has ever the death of a great man stopped anything?
Did the death of Archimedes stopped math from evolving?
Did the death of Mozart stopped music creation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because no one will be around to see a world where there is no art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're mixing 2 different concepts. An artist can of course only produce so much, whatever medium they happen to work in. But that work, once available in a digital form, can be reproduced infinitely and almost instantly.
An individual's ability to create his art has certainly not been limited, and has most likely been increased many times over in recent decades. However, the old ways of making a profit from it are no longer applicable. One of those ways was reliant on content being scarce (artificially or otherwise). Those days are over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But the collection of all producers can produce more than any single consumer can ever consume in his lifetime. For instance, several hours of video are uploaded to Youtube per minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool
Now wonder when or if he is going to post the thing about Barbra Ringer terribly short-sighted reasons about why we needed the 1976 copyright act and seventy five years or life plus fifty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cool
Don't know if I saw that one... could you resubmit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natural vs artificial scarcity
My thoughts are that all IP today is for too long a time. I do believe that it is reasonable to provide a temporary head start to an inventor, author, etc., and trademark should be allowed to prevent consumer abuse where necessary.
Today, though, unquestionably IP is used to reward campaign contributors (and blatant payoffs), and we would be better off without it (in that form - I personally refuse to work with people who abuse IP; that's why I am a poor lawyer, economically speaking).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natural vs artificial scarcity
My thoughts are that all IP today is for too long a time. I do believe that it is reasonable to provide a temporary head start to an inventor, author, etc., and trademark should be allowed to prevent consumer abuse where necessary.
Today, though, unquestionably IP is used to reward campaign contributors (and blatant payoffs), and we would be better off without it (in that form - I personally refuse to work with people who abuse IP; that's why I am a poor lawyer, economically speaking).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scarcity of production or distribution
Furthermore, the original argument was a rebuttal of the idea of perpetual copyright, not copyright of a finite term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opinion button = shill button
Shill = 22 matches including this post on the date of this post.
Dictionary said:
Comments have {insightful | funny | report} buttons. Adding a button ---> SHILL only gives negative color to opposing positions regardless of the position taken. Plus the code is scarce.
DOA
later,
-d @fairuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: opinion button = shill button
By the "22 matches" comment, you seem to suggest that the term is overused, but that means little if the term is in fact true. You then seem to suggest that the idea that a piece of code may be scarce (albeit not true in any way on a web site) might somehow invalidate the concept of certain objections to traditional copyright often suggested on this site. You also seem to suggest that only people who completely agree with TD's points would ever disagree with the moronic points put forward by the ACs here.
Given that, I would suggest that you're either being deliberately provocative or have a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments often put forward here. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: opinion button = shill button
Stirring the pot or as you say, "being deliberately provocative". The only thing that is a puzzle is the increasing us vs them attitude but I may be just noticing it more.
As for the word shill? It is a word that is usually part of Argumentum ad Hominem. I really don't care who agrees or disagrees with whom. I like to see better dialogue but that is not human nature -- the dialogue will be pretty much, as every forum user/mod knows, "from all points of the compass".
I'll try to keep a lid on poking folks in the ribs with a stick.
-d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I long ago, as have many others associated with copyright law, read the report and took note of the report and all comments thereto, including those by Mallet.
In the above quoted section Mallet is attempting to explore existing legal theories separate from property law, with his view of propert law being essentially "economics-based", and not "social-construct" based.
What I found interesting when I first read his comments was that he explored alternate theories such as contract law, and suggested that it might be a more appropriate basis for the preservation of the rights of authors. This does have merit, but at the same time is not without its problems. More particularly, as has been mentioned here before, it would not at all be unusual if the cessation of copyright law was simply replaced by the fertile minds of lawyers and clients alike via the expediency of contracts. If I recall correctly, such a system was explored several years ago by Professor Epstein in a journal article. One of my take-aways from his article was that perhaps there is merit to a copyright system in that it addresses legal rights in a manner that is much more circumspect and defined than would be the case via reliance on contracts.
Now, contracts are not without their problems, but even so many of the limitations associated with current copyright law (e.g., fair use) would largely be cast aside since First Amendment limitations pertain to federal and state action, in contradistinction to the actions of private parties.
In a somewhat hamfisted way I am merely noting that shifting from one body of law to another is fraught with the law of unintended consequences. For example, and I do not profess to know the answer since I have not researched the issue, would Congress declining to exercise its power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 as pertains to "science" leave the states free to enact their own body of law as was the case prior to the Copyright Act of 1976? Obviously, under such a legal regime the First Amendment would once more come to the fore, but at the same time it is not at all clear that the common law of torts could be expanded and applied under general principles of unfair competition. All I wish to note is that the current copyright law does keep both federal and state action in check, and its cessation might prove to be quite problematic over the long run.
As is sometimes said "The devil you know is better than the one you don't."
I must admit having a wry smile as I read Mallet's repeated references to "piracy". This is merely an observation, and nothing more should be impled from its mention.
In sum, while Mallet did struggle with property as a basis for copyright law, it was my view that he did not simply say "it is not property and there are no other legal approaches that would/could pick up the slack".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]