Alex Tabarrok on Marginal Revolution posted an interesting comment on J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter wealth. Though it’s been up for 2+ days and generated several comments, I don’t see a mention of copyright anywhere. I think it’s very relevant. This is a blog of smart and aware readers and writers.
Update: Commenter “candid” spots a reference to “IP” in comment #3 at Marginal Revolution, confirming my observation about their writers and readers, and drawing into question my own capabilities . . ./Update
To see discussion of copyright, one must go to Matthew Iglesias’ follow-on. It’s not him, but his commenters who surface the intellectual property issue. Commenter “Rich C” says:
If Rowling (and her publisher) could not rely on an internationally enforceable system of intellectual property rights, her income would be a good deal lower. Rowling’s wealth is a product of protectionist policies, not free trade or technology.
A system of support for creative artists that does not depend on current forms of intellectual property protection (such as that Dean Baker has proposed) would still allow Rowling to live an extraordinarily comfortable life, but would sharply limit the windfall gains to her and her publisher. A system of real free trade in creative products would not increase inequality to anything like the degree we see with our system today.
I don’t know anything about this Dean Baker or his proposal, but I do think copyright is very relevant to J.K. Rowling’s wealth, and I think more people should be thinking and talking about its role in creativity, wealth creation, and sometimes windfalls.
(Via Will Wilkinson.)
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.