Re: WSJ a useless copyright privilege
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
> Here's something for all you copyright killers to think about:Scott Turow is a wealthy lawyer and best-selling author. Somehow, my heart is not bleeding for him, nor for other authors who have become "brands" for purposes of rent seeking. One could perhaps be more sympathetic if the copyright system were not churning out such immense quantities of such utter drek <cough> Stephenie Meyer <cough> Fifty Shades of Gray <cough> and leaving authors of genuine merit to starve.
People don't yet understand how information technology has changed the literary market. Readers drowning in public domain literature no longer have to compete to gain access to authors' new, copyrighted works. Rather, authors of new works have to compete for readers' time and attention. So the old model of author/publisher monopoly privilege, never a justifiable or economically efficient one, is now irretrievably broken. The market power is on the other side. It's therefore time for authors who want to make a living from their writing to find or create a revenue model that does not rely on abrogating other people's rights. Good writers made a living before copyright. They can make a living after copyright.
-- Roy Langston
Although my remarks about some opponents of copyright being, perhaps, happier with Communism were in the nature of a wind-up, there is a splendid dotCommunist Manifesto by Professor Eben Moglen 2003 first sentence "There is a Spectre haunting multinational capitalism -the Spectre of free information ."The whole thing is spun as a homage to the Communist Manifesto, couched in class terms, with no little wit. As such, it is a good deal more appealing than some of the more right-wing arguments normally adduced in support of copyright abolition. However the affinity of anti-intellectual property arguments to Communism is stressed throughout.P.S I am having trouble with the sentence below "All other monopolies in it's are entirely law made." I would also be grateful for some more quotes from the classical economists you mention -or even their names .Have drawn a blank with Smith and Hume who see monopolies as things granted (Smith) or sold (Hume) by governments.
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:18:14 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: WSJ a useless copyright privilege
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>If they think they should get computer whatevers on the cheap the same way large families are supposed to get accommodation on the cheap via super- lite LVT then I would imagine that their beef is really with laissez -faire capitalism and its Achilles heel of inevitable monopoly.<
Exactly not. Classical economists have been concerned with monopolies since the beginning, and the Georgist section of classic economists ever much more so. That's why these things get discussed here. It's not uneasiness about markets at all. With regards to land, as long as we are to have private property in land, and we are, monopoly rents has to be adressed, including the natural monopolies that follow from conditions of location and scarcity. All other monopolies in it's are entirely law-made. Creating these monopolies may or may not be a positive, but the burden of proof lies on those who defend these rights, not vice versa.
>So great is this sense of political distress, that you have to wonder if they would n't be happier with Communism, that recognises no inventor is bigger than the culture s/he was informed by ,so should not receive any financial gain from being born along by the development of the culture in general.Also when any monopoly develops it would be used in the public interest. Quite possibly this would involve operating at a "commercial loss". And what's the problem as Chamberlain said when taking the Birmingham Water Works into public control in 1876 (private sources of water were poisoning everybody) "Our profit will be the health of the people!" Or increased production by computer operatives!!<
Where exactly are you going? Sure, public waterworks works, I'm very much in favour of public operation/regulation of most natural monopolies, some sort of regulation of some types of market failure, pro-redistribution, and generally in favour of liberalisation of everything else, why would I be more comfortable with communism? States who follow liberal market policies, uphold property rights, regulates and adresses natural monopolies and have some sort of redistribution mechanisms (as compensation for not adressing land enough), are generally richer and freer compared to anywhere anytime in history, why would I want communism instead?