[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for ReviewbySCOTUS

On 02/20/02 at 17:47, 'twas brillig and Scott A Crosby scrobe:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, John Zulauf wrote:
> >
> > The copyright clause is about promoting progress, not maximizing
> > return.  Having a variable term for works copyrights will only lead to
> Isn't 'progress' usually considered fulfilled when you maximize the
> economic output from a work. When the most money is made on a work? In
> that case, as per Posner and Ladner (I believe), it may be that that is
> true with these obscenely restrictive laws.
> Or, if you define progress as maximizing the number of works in the public
> domain, in, say, 30 years.. Then no.

	If we have to fight the battle on (capitalist) economist's
turf, then we must find a way to change the focus. Posner et al seem
to zero in on maximizing the output of a given work. We must show that
a policy that holds such individual maximization as the preeminent
goal will result in a reduction of the *overall economic output of the
industry*, because a large number of possible new works (and hence new
opportunities for economic output) depend on the utilization of old
works in the public domain, and those profits cannot occur unless the
public domain continues to expand.

	(Ugh, now my brain hurts and I feel icky. How do economists
stand thinking like this all day?)

Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr *
CS Computing Facility, UMass * <www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/> for public key 

perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'