Re: Re: intellectual property

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hal Varian writes that >The music industry argues that it cannot survive in
its present form without additional intellectual property protection. There
is some justification for this view. After the French Revolution, one of
the first acts of the new National Assembly was to eliminate copyrights.
Within a few years, only pornography and seditious material was being
published. Though such material can apparently survive any intellectual
property regime, the French had to reinstate copyrights to provide
incentives to produce more substantive works. <

Michael writes:
> On its face the story doesn't make any sense.  For example, on the Internet
> today, pornography is among the most profitably businesses going.  Why would
> copyrights make pornography less profitable?

I think Varian's point is that abolishing copyrights makes nonporn
unprofitable rather than copyrights makes porn less profitable, so that
going back to copyrights allows both nonporn and porn to be profitable.

> A real model to look for 21 in which the producers of music -- the musicians,
> songwriters, etc. could find a way to directly connect with the market,
> cutting the plea to the record companies out the loop.

Varian agrees, in a way. He sez: >Today, music companies contract with
bands for content that they then distribute and promote. Perhaps in the
future, bands will distribute their own content, making money from
subscriptions, live performances and T-shirts, while paying the music
companies for marketing and promotion. <

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine