The economic debate over public domain can essentially be reduced to one element—motivation. Is one motivated extrinsically—by profit or fame, or intrinsically—for the sole satisfaction of making the contribution.
Capitalists might argue that intellectual property is a public good that everyone has access to and can own. Because it is a public good it costs nothing, therefore no profit can be made on its production. This is why government must place rules on its production, so there can be incentive to produce more intellectual property. However, the capitalism viewpoint follows too closely to the economic principal espoused by Adam Smith 250 years ago—that man is motivated by self-interest. In doing so it completely discounts the impact of the intrinsically motivated.
Wikipedia is a prime example of how successful the intrinsically motivated can be. When one proofreads and edits an article on Wikipedia, they are doing so for the personal satisfaction associated with making a difference. They volunteer their time and receive no monetary benefit for their actions. This is not to say that all intellectual property should be free, but the cost of input should be kept as low as possible to ensure a healthy public domain. If we exclude the millions who would contribute intellectual property strictly for the “good feeling” they get from doing it, we are limiting access and society suffers from lack of participation.
Netanel, N. (2008). Copyright's paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment