[LINK] Statement of Principles: Copyright and the FTA

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Vic,

>which agrees with my point that curtailement of IP rights are bad
>since they have a negative effect on SNA.

Here is a single, direct question: why do you still equate "resisting expansion of copyright" with "curtailment of IP rights"? 

Richard Chirgwin


Deus Ex Machina wrote:

>Glen Turner [glen.turner at aarnet.edu.au] wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 12:47, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Glen Turner [glen.turner at aarnet.edu.au] wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>the entire thrust is predicated on obscure and unmeasurable
>>>>>ideals like the "public good" and the opinion of members.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>The public good is measurable.  Since the spectacular failure of some
>>>>1960/70s development projects because of narrow measures of progress,
>>>>practical Developmental Economics has had a sustained focus on the
>>>>measurement of the public good. But even within the System of National
>>>>Accounts it's pretty clear that the intellectual property changes of the
>>>>AUSFTA are a loss for Australia.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>prove it. the System of National Accounts does not measure public good.
>>>      
>>>
>>OK.
>>
>>The SNA measures the economic activity of the nation, with a bias
>>towards measurements which are simple to take. Economic activity is a
>>significant aspect of the public good (if you buy into the "trickle down
>>theory of welfare economics", the major aspect). That's why we are
>>interested in measuring it in the first place.
>>
>>Free trade is likely to improve the SNA more than other aspects of the
>>public good (by definition, since the SNA measures trade whereas other
>>components of the public good do not). And yet the economic modeling of
>>the FTA's effects on the SNA is coming up short for the Intellectual
>>Property provisions. A strong indication that the FTA is not positive
>>for the public good.
>>    
>>
>
>reference?
>
>measuring a "significant aspect of" is a far cry from "The public good is
>measurable". what you are saying in effect is the public good can be
>measured by measuring the total (simplified) sum of the "individual goods",
>which I agree is pretty much the only thing you can say about "commons" and "public good".
>
>which agrees with my point that curtailement of IP rights are bad
>since they have a negative effect on SNA.
>
>Vic
>
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>  
>