Tom Morris wrote:
I agree with Tom's argument.
Vanity publishing does not require copyright. It is just noise, unless
someone likes it.
So, yeah, counter-factuals seem like a bad way to go in the debate
unless there is some nice way of finding a neutral, scientifically
respectable way of measuring the actual outcomes of different
intellectual property scenarios.
We can see some of the opportunity costs in the works of Benkler
(counter factuals) etc. Open Source and Free Software is another.
The Dutch had a period without copyright.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page
Is macroeconomics a science yet? ;)
Definitely not.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
