Simon Thompson wrote:
A quote from the abstract of an accepted paper to a non-peer reviewed
journal edited by second year law students about US intellectual
property law does not prove the case the argument.
I think it is prima face evidence that I am not alone in expressing
doubts about Intellectual Property Law and Copyright in particular.
Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine make a much better case.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of
copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of
ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books,
music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a
government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas.
We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not
necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to
growth, prosperity and liberty."
Michele Boldrin
Department of Economics
Washington University in St. Louis
David K. Levine is John H. Biggs Distinguished Professor of Economics
at Washington University in St. Louis.
While I am typing this Prof Lessig, and Prof Boyle have books related to
Intellectual Property. They have a more moderate view, as do many legal
scholars.
http://www.lessig.org/
http://www.thepublicdomain.org/
Available as PDF's
-
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]/
