From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 15:28:07 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker [mailto:lee@piclab.com] wrote:
Your suggestion would solve a
few of the most heinous problems with current IP enforcement; it would
eliminate the pure subsidy aspect, and it would place more work in the
public domain when profits fell below the level needed to sustain
enforcement (preventing the problem of good out-of-print books simply
vanishing from the public consciousness because the original publlisher
doesn't want to print more and it's illegal for anyone else to). But it
would still basically prevent competition, derivative works, etc., and
needs to be justified.
### Thanks! I agree that this regime would need to be justified - and the
only sufficient justification would be a successful experimental proof. Say,
you abolish IP in Alabama and Louisiana, then institute my plan in one of
the states, with the modification that only local authors would be able to
join the protection racket, then measure local output of creative works (by
copy number of artworks, economic impact of new inventions, polling the
population about ease of access and quality of locally produced
information). This should give some real answers.
BTW - one more quirk in my plan - the protection contracts could be signed
with private enforcement agencies. They would cooperate to some extent, but
would set their own prices and conditions for protection (with the
court-enforced requirement for novelty in anything that may be a subject of
the protection contract). This would assure a balance between intrusiveness
and efficiency - agencies willing to enforce more sweeping contracts (like
some of the worst EULA's) might find it difficult, would have to charge high
prices, and authors would think twice before being too obnoxious to their
consumers.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:54 MST