-- 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