Comments | ken_schneyer: That Which Is Not Hypocrisy

ken_schneyer

That Which Is Not Hypocrisy

Feb 24, 2010 17:23

About two years ago I was at a law conference, presenting a paper called "Replacing Copyright." The thesis of the paper was that copyright, a regime that served a specific economic purpose to respond to a specific economic problem occasioned by the invention of the printing press, had become obsolete in light of a completely different cost-curve ( Read more... )

Comments 7

shaunaroberts February 24 2010, 22:46:38 UTC

Thanks for outlining this argument about public policy and private life. I will use it myself in the future, I'm sure.

I wish I had some brilliant idea for what should replace copyright, because this problem is a growing concern to me as a freelance writer who makes her living selling rights to her work. Unfortunately, I don't even have a dumb idea.

ken_schneyer February 24 2010, 23:20:36 UTC

There are lots of proposals out there. I just happen to like mine best. ;)

kaolinfire February 24 2010, 23:12:16 UTC

Very interesting stuff. I'd be interested in reading your paper.

Somewhat surprised, though, unless you _were_ looking for some direct economic gain from it down the road, that you didn't creative commons it or some such. :)

Plenty of middle-ground regardless of which false parallel is being made. ;)

ken_schneyer February 24 2010, 23:34:19 UTC

I'm a big booster of Creative Commons licenses, but they constitute a unilateral yielding of rights with no return. Probably the bulk of my stuff (especially my nonfiction stuff) will eventually be in Creative Commons format, but of course it would have been impossible for me to get it published in refereed journals if such licenses had already been given out, and I needed the journal credits for professional advancement. This is precisely the competetive problem of unilateral action while the regime is still in force.

Do you want me to send you the article?

kaolinfire February 24 2010, 23:39:42 UTC

I needed the journal credits for professional advancement.

Ah, yeah, this is exactly what I was wondering--if your intent was to get the paper peer-journaled. I'm with you re: journals.

Not sure if you noticed, but GUD actually published a piece that's CC in Issue 5. Not something I expect we'll be doing as a rule, but I can imagine doing it now and again.

Though CC don't have to be a unilateral yielding of rights: CC-BY-ND-NC is, imo, reasonably limiting (all the same, I'm not doing that with my work either, these days...at least not until securing first publication).

Er, and yeah, I'd definitely be interested in seeing it. :)

amamama February 25 2010, 08:13:00 UTC

While reading this I kept saying over and over to the smartass commenters that it is possible to follow the rules of society while still wishing and working for their change. If I had an energy drain of a house I would definitely work on making it more energy efficient, because no matter what the laws might say the power needed to heat it will just cost more and more in the future. Unless someone comes up with an SF-worthy solution that really does not pollute ( ... )

madderbrad February 26 2010, 08:39:01 UTC

I'm just posting to say that I love your entry's icon, it cracks me up. :-) Perfect for the occasion.

I agree about the separation of private life from public policy. Sadly, you're never going to get the *whole world* to come to a consensus on adopting a policy which would give anyone abrogating it a competitive advantage. Viz the countries like China (and Brazil, I think?) which cheerfully snub their noses at the Western World's intellectual copyright laws as it stands.