Here is David K. Levine’s IP website, which allows you to download Boldrin and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly, at a price of $0.00.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10376/resources-on-ip/
Resources on IP
Previous post: Prosperity and Depression
Next post: Shocking News: People Take Free Money!
{ 7 comments }
after reading the b&l work, i recommend reading this paper by george selgin. whilst it makes a good case that b&l have misinterpreted the watt steam engine episode, i feel, if anything, it strengthens the anti-ip case. selgin’s got a real talent for catchy titles, too.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/%7Ejlturner/StrongSteamApril2009.pdf
Take a look inside – the anti-copyright book is copyrighted.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280#reader
Most people prefer printed books and choose to buy them regardless of online content availability (Mises Institute knows this well). You can download the book at a price of $0.00, because it is a form a advertisement — however, authors know that they woudn’t earn a dime without copyright protection for their printed book (otherwise, unauthorized copies would flood the market driving down prices toward 0).
In fact, we owe the mass marketing of works of authorship to copyright (since it allows people to purchase a limited use of books, since it normally costs a fortune to obtain full ownership or co-ownership rights)… Before printing press was invented, the market for “limited use” of books couldn’t have existed — and we know this period as the Dark Ages.
I support the authors’ right to sell only limited use of their books (restricting unwanted replication). The owner has a right to allow certain uses of their property — while restricting others — even when he advocated the violation of other people’s property rights.
Sasha,
Thank you for pointing out the copyright notice on the anti-copyright book. Let me reproduce the notice here:
“This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.”
The B&L book is interesting but yes, the research article above shows how utilitarian arguments can never close a case though. They can only make readers think a little further.
My feeling was also confirmed as, while reading the Watts story (and others alos) I had the impression the authors were making it sound more scientific than needed for the comprehension of their arguments.
This appears now to be superficial blabber.
The shortfall stays thus – just as Mr Tucker acknowledged it from the beginning – the logical and philosophical elaboration missing for the implied benefits of the suppression of copyright (or patent).
Dr Kinsellas’ essay is supposed to perfectly compensate this shortfall (that’s another story I prefer not to address here), but the B&L book doesn’t even seem to connect to it.
Still, as an opponent of patent, not copyright, I d recommend reading it (the free version), because it gives a good scope of the several areas concerned by any change in policies if necessary.
Although I appreciate Newson’s reference to my paper, I can’t imaging how it “strengthens the anti-ip case.” It actually refutes the claim that Watt’s engine patents blocked the development of high-pressure steam technology.
By the way, I hold no brief either for or against ip.
I’m currently reading Kinsella’s book, which has a similar title.
As for my stance on IP, I am against patents, but I support a short term limit for copyrights. I think four years would be about right. That would be more than enough time for the authors, producers, or songwriters to make their money. At the same time the public would be allowed to use and distribute copyrighted works freely, within a few years, without fear of punishment.
to george selgin:
well, i felt you proved the point (to a non-engineer like me) that the patent system wasn’t the great block to steam engine development that b&l maintained.
both the steam-clietele’s conservatism, and watt’s great reputation (and active scaremongering) seemed to have been the major factors in slowing the change to high-pressure steam.
if scaremongering, reputation, conservatism etc can serve the innovator, all the less need for a patent law.
that’s how i read you paper, anyway. and a great read it was, too.
Comments on this entry are closed.