From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 12:52:50 MDT
> (Smigrodzki, Rafal <SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu>):
>
> ### The argument you provide is indeed IMO the best for IP in general but
> not necessarily in its current form. You also point out that IP as practiced
> now is quite wasteful and rigid (a typical fault of statist, bureaucratic
> methods). What would you think about the following modification: the state
> as a provider of violent deterrence signs a contract with a party (the
> author) in possession of a non-disseminated piece of information (meaning
> they have the only copy, for example right after finishing the recording of
> a song or developing a drug). The contract stipulates that the state will
> forcibly prevent others from using that piece of information without the
> author's permission, in exchange for a fee. The fee depends on the number of
> legally made copies (the more copies, the tougher enforcement, the higher
> fee), elapsed time (the longer you wait, the more difficult enforcement, the
> higher fee), and author's selling price (the higher price, the more
> difficult enforcememt, the provider asks for a higher percentage). There is
> a time and copy limit on the contract. This arrangement would reward authors
> who quickly disseminate their works, provide high value (if users are
> willing to pay more for a copy, the author can afford to pay the enforcement
> fee longer, presumably with important inventions all they way to the limits
> of copy number and time limit, but with pulp fiction it would be better to
> sell cheap, and quick). The general contract limits and fee schedule might
> be set to maximize state profit - thus assuring that the maximum of service
> is provided to the end-users. What do you think?
That would be an improvement to what we have now, but I still don't buy
the basic premise (remember, I was providing these arguments for the
opposition, bot because I believed them). 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:53 MST