Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
jamesd at echeque.com
jamesd at echeque.com
Thu Jul 4 09:22:23 PDT 2002
--
James A. Donald:
> > Again, If you offered the average guy the deal "Would you like
> > on demand access to all movies and television shows ever made,
> > even if it meant fewer and lower budget movie releases in
> > future?", I think most people would go for on demand access to
> > everything.
On 4 Jul 2002 at 10:40, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> That might well be. But being that you're tapping into something
> largely produced under existing copyright law, I fail to see why
> this is an argument against continuing the practice of copyright
> in some form.
A moment ago you were arguing maximum utility (your public good
argument) Now you concede utility, and argue rights, but
copyright, unlike real property, is merely a conventional right,
created by the will and power of the state, not a natural right.
If that convention ceases to be convenient and useful, ceases to
have utility, we should not continue it.
And if you are going to argue from long established conventional
rights, copyright has been extended by twenty years every twenty
years, so it is not a long established conventional right.
Returning to your public good argument. As more and more stuff
piles up, the production of new stuff becomes a less and less
valuable public good. At the same time, as with any "public
good", congress (being in the pocket of state created interest
groups) creates greater and greater incentives to produce more and
more of this public good.
If an anarchic free market underproduces public goods, government
subject to interest groups overproduces public goods, a problem
that is particularly serious with such dubious public goods as
"defense", cultural or racial purity, and so on and so forth.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
AuUb5hhEidar6RcqijVgtwYwp/KmvStrc0T7DzHr
2RvexEhEvdWrbHJCBYyEdaMKK39UOJQJRBt9gjbKk
More information about the Testlist
mailing list