Steve Jolly wrote:
If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit
from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs,
T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author.
Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s for
which the band can charge (live performances).
Every law on the books exists to benefit society as a whole by removing
Freedoms from the individual. My right to privacy in my own home
requires that other people give up their freedom to enter it without
permission, for example. So I don't think you can make a case that
copyright is unusual in this regard.
Not unusual just unnecessary.
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here. My point was that a
publisher who chose to pay an author for their work would be
out-competed within days or weeks by competitors who have no reason to
pay that author a penny.
The argument is that, the copying is only worth doing, for hits.
By the time you identify a hit the author is already adequately
compensated. The current system allows the publisher to capture
value that should belong to the public.
You may find Marl Lemleys work interesting although it does not directly
address this issue.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982977
"Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual
property is a form of property, and have applied the economic insights
of Harold Demsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of
intellectual property by others as free riding. In this article, I argue
that this represents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory
of property."
-
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]/
