From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Date: Fri May 07 1999 - 09:42:07 MDT
> Well, after looking back over the archives I can see that we aren't likely
> to come to a meeting of minds on this topic. I think that property rights
> are a necessary precondition of production and trade, and therefore that
> abolishing copyright would lead to a precipitous decline in the production
> of intellectual property. You apparently believe that abolishing copyright
> would actually lead to an increase in such production.
Yes, I too believe property rights are absolutely essential for production
and trade. But the fundamental nature of "property" is something that
can only be used by one person at a time. All physical property has that
nature; trademarks have that nature; stories and songs do not. That's
not an opinion, just a simple, objective fact of nature. Because of that
fact, it is worth examining whether or not using the same social structure
we use for excludable property makes sense for non-excludables. Most
people merely assume it does--but that's just an assumption, and really
needs to be examined more carefully.
> On the good side, at least this is a question of fact and not some
> unmeasurable philosophical issue. Unfortunately, what we really need to
> settle the issue is an example of an actual modern society without copyright
> laws. AFAIK there isn't any such place, so we are left with a distressing
> absence of data.
Our own society through most of its history is a good example.
Copyrights and patents are a very recent innovation of the last
century or two. Even as late as the 1800s, the US did not recognize
foreign copyrights or patents (Charles Dickens' novels were often
bootlegged in the states). Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer; the
great artists like Da Vinci and Rembrandt; composers Mozart, Bach,
and Beethoven; all produced their works and earned their livings
without benefit of copyright. Some countries even today still
have no such laws (India being the prime example).
> Since you apparently don't accept the arguments from economic theory, or
> from historical precedent, I suppose we'll just have to continue to disagree
> until someone actually performs the experiment.
I gladly accept arguments from economics and history; please present one.
The only arguments I ever hear are "Well, it's obvious that we must have..."
or "There's no way to profit without...", both of which are merely
argument by lack of imagination. The "historical" argument I most
definitely do not accept is the meaningless "We've always done it this
way...", especially when it's not even true.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:41 MST