Advertisement

The Royalties System and Paratrophic Copyright

  • Benedict Atkinson
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses paratrophic process, a process that effects transfer of benefit from a larger to smaller group. The chapter argues that paratrophic process is characteristic of all property systems, which, unless directed by action of the polity to function distributively, concentrate benefit rather than diffusing it. In a fully paratrophic system, one person owns everything. In an effectively distributive system ownership is more evenly diffused among members of society. This chapter posits that the copyright royalties system is an example of a partly paratrophic system: the royalties system is a regulated by laws that ensure efficient transfer of income from the public to copyright industries in a way that ensures that disproportionate benefit is transferred from public to industries. But the public receives some benefit, meaning that the system is not entirely paratrophic. By contrast, the feudal system, which is discussed was entirely paratrophic.

References

Books

  1. Altman G (1999) The ascent of babel: an exploration of language, mind and understanding. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Atiyah P (1985) The rise and fall of freedom of contract. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson B (2007) The true history of copyright: the Australian experience 1905–2005. Sydney University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson B, Fitzgerald B (2014) A short history of copyright: the genie of information. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloch M (1940/1962) Feudal society, vols 1–2. Routledge and Kegan Paul LtdGoogle Scholar
  6. Crystal D (2008) How language works. PenguinGoogle Scholar
  7. Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Gerald Duckworth & CoGoogle Scholar
  8. Gervais D (ed) (2010) Collective management of copyright and related rights, 2nd edn. Wolters KluwerGoogle Scholar
  9. Henderson E (1896) Select historical documents of the middle ages. George Bell and SonsGoogle Scholar
  10. Landolt PL (ed) (2006) Collective management of copyright & related rights. KluwerGoogle Scholar
  11. Locke J (1689) Second treatise on governmentGoogle Scholar
  12. Marx K (1848) Communist manifestoGoogle Scholar
  13. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the 21st century. Harvard University Press. Data available at http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2
  14. Pollock B (2014) A friend in the music business: the ASCAP story. Hal Leonard BooksGoogle Scholar
  15. Weber M (1922/1964) The theory of social and economic organization. Free PressGoogle Scholar

Journal Articles

  1. Abrams H (2010) Copyright’s first compulsory licence Santa Clara High. Technol Law J 26:215–253Google Scholar
  2. Brown E (1974) The tyranny of a construct: feudalism and historians of medieval Europe. Am Hist Rev 79:1063–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cam H (1940) The decline and fall of English feudalism. History 25:216–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cirace J (1978) CBS v ASCAP: an economic analysis of a political problem. Fordham Law Rev 47:287Google Scholar
  5. Drahos P (2002) Developing countries and international intellectual property standard-setting in. J World Intell Prop 5:765–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hand L (1908) Due process of law and the eight-hour day. Harv Law Rev 21:495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Loren LP (2010) The evolving role of ‘for profit’ use in copyright law: lessons from the 1909 Act Santa Clara computer and high. Technol Law J 26:2010–2017Google Scholar
  8. Mensch B (1981) Freedom of contract as ideology. Stanford Law Rev 33:753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pound R (1909) Liberty of contract. Yale Law J 18:454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Robertson A (2005) The limits of voluntariness in contract. Melb Univ Law Rev 29(1):179Google Scholar
  11. Sobel L (1983) The music business and the sherman act: an analysis of the economic realities of blanket licensing Loyola of. Los Angeles Entertain Law Rev 1:1–50Google Scholar
  12. Vinogradoff P (1924) The foundations of a theory of rights. Va Law Regist 10(8):562, 559Google Scholar
  13. Wu T (2004) Copyright’s communications policy. Mich Law Rev 103:278CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benedict Atkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations