Comments on: The Economics of Things that Flow http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/10/the_economics_o_1.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/10/the_economics_o_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-56663 Frank Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:20:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/10/the-economics-of-things-that-flow.html#comment-56663 By the way, there's also a "IP expansionist" take on the similarity between IP and natural resources; Landes and Posner make a point about "congestion externalities arising out of overuse of a bit of expression." But Dennis Karjala has pretty convincingly refuted that idea. By the way, there’s also a “IP expansionist” take on the similarity between IP and natural resources; Landes and Posner make a point about “congestion externalities arising out of overuse of a bit of expression.” But Dennis Karjala has pretty convincingly refuted that idea.

]]> By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/10/the_economics_o_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-56662 Frank Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:18:37 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/10/the-economics-of-things-that-flow.html#comment-56662 I think that makes a lot of sense. If our proposal is accepted, I will be on a panel at Law, Culture, & Humanities in DC next March with a group of scholars interested in the connections between environmental law and IP. There are many interesting parallels between, say, the public trust doctrine and essential facilities doctrine, or eminent domain and fair use, etc. As for information and desert--yes, I think that's a good point. But I think the right to access water is a matter of brute need, which society should commit itself to expending resources on. The right to access information/expression is often not nearly so compelling, but the main policy concern is to avoid the mean-spiritedness of denying access to people when the marginal cost of their access is zero and they have no way to pay. For in the IP example, it's not that the state is spending resources to bring access; rather, "progressives" here are advocating for the state to spend less resources on denying access. I think that makes a lot of sense. If our proposal is accepted, I will be on a panel at Law, Culture, & Humanities in DC next March with a group of scholars interested in the connections between environmental law and IP. There are many interesting parallels between, say, the public trust doctrine and essential facilities doctrine, or eminent domain and fair use, etc.

As for information and desert–yes, I think that’s a good point. But I think the right to access water is a matter of brute need, which society should commit itself to expending resources on. The right to access information/expression is often not nearly so compelling, but the main policy concern is to avoid the mean-spiritedness of denying access to people when the marginal cost of their access is zero and they have no way to pay. For in the IP example, it’s not that the state is spending resources to bring access; rather, “progressives” here are advocating for the state to spend less resources on denying access.

]]>