Henning Makholm writes: > Scripsit Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm working on the argument that copyrights are so confusing because > > they are really an attempt at a government subsidy to authors (to > > promote the Progress, etc.), cleverly disguised as a minor market > > regulation. > > Hum? I've always thought that was quite clearly and openly the > official rationale behind the entire "intellectual property" > concept. > > The extent to which this official rational is merely a front for > the publishing industry's lobbyism is an open question, but I > happen to think it's a rather good rationale as long as we're > talking about the literary and artistic works copyright was > concieved for.
I didn't mean "cleverly disguised" in the sense that the copyright industries had captured these regulations and were hiding their true purpose. I meant that the copyright subsidies are not structured as direct payments to authors, but leave the outward appearance of a free and competitive market in their works. "Cleverly disguised" here was a figure of speech, not an attribution of evil conspiracies to the copyright industries. The subsidy rationale is apparent enough historically, _but_ plenty of people have stopped talking about "incentive" and begun talking about "ownership". That has some pretty serious consequences, at least conceptually. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
