Boyle on Webcasters and WIPO

pjones writes "It's always amazing to see an article in Financial Times that supports webcasters and open source, but James Boyle sticks it to the World Intellectual Property Organization in his latest article, "More rights are wrong for webcasters." Boyle lays it out so that "economists, political scientists and people who simply want to make money" can get what's wrong."

Comments

Is it that amazing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems logical that the FT would be on the side of business - and of course, they are. Virtually their entire readership would agree that making money is a good thing.

However, taken as a whole, entrenched monopolies and cartels are not good for business. Small businesses and startups are essential for the economy, especially in fast growing sectors. Economists know this. As such, it's not all that surprising that the FT will take a stance that is against that of the multinationals.

What's the Payoff?

[Quirk]

I can't remember the name of the bankrobber, but I do remember a bankrobber responding to the question: "Why do you rob banks?" The robber responded: "Because that's where the money is?"

So where's the money in this festering mess? Is it possibly in the tax base? Expanded IP expands the tax base at a loss to the public interest. IP marks a clear paper trail as to who owns what and what can be expected in terms of revenue and, in turn, tax revenue.

Big government requires big tax revenues and what better to "sell off" than the cultural and intellectual heritage of it's constituents. The infrastructure to oversee IP is minimal while the tax gain is substantial. Basically it's a big tax grab. Maybe it'll be pay raises all around for our elected representatives.