Economic justifications for copyright often face arguments from societal perspectives such as cultural progress and free speech. However, these views do not always acknowledge that transformation of copyright law has been marked by proper policy considerations. A recent law review article from Stanford, tries to argue the lack of such considerations as it takes on the expansion of copyright protection that accompanied growth in Internet technologies.

The article by Omkar Muralidharan, Promoting Science and Useful Arts: The Growth of Copyright Since 1976, The Stanford Review, Volume 36, Issue 9 (May 2006), blames the current US copyright regime on insufficient economic analysis: “the rise of free market ideology has accelerated the shift toward stronger copyright.. The usual benefits of markets do not necessarily apply to copyright, since it relies heavily on government interference.” The disagreement is spelled out: “The social cost of copyright was largely ignored—the economic interests of the public were assumed to coincide with wealthy copyright holders…The economic growth explanation for copyright expansion is weak at best.” Continuing: “IP is only property by analogy, and there is little reason to believe that this analogy holds very far.”

This bashing of copyright policy potentially make sense, until you remember that not only does big industry thrive under existing copyright law, small innovators and individual authors do as well. Further, the existence of multi-billion dollar communications, content, gaming and media industries, that rely on copyright protection, provide consumers with desired goods, and in return are paid what the market deems their worth. Their success reflects the benefits they offer consumers.

Strong counter-arguments to the Stanford review come from Columbia professor Jane Ginsburg, a renowned supporter of small beneficiaries of the copyright system. Although written several years ago, the article Copyright and Control Over New Technologies of Dissemination, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 5, 1613 (November 2001), makes important observations that remain applicable today. Professor Ginsburg writes that in the copyright debate, “the prospects for authors most often are overlooked.” 1618. Further: “control over access appears… to increase, rather than decrease, the public availability of works of authorship, because protection of technological measures removes a disincentive for copyright owners to disclose otherwise vulnerable works.” 1636. Additionally, “technologies enable new markets for copyrighted works, as creators are “given adequate assurance of (its technological medium) amenability to copyright enforcement, copyright owners were expected to exploit the new market.” 1631.

Professor Ginsburg views that the aim of copyright policy is to “preserve incentives to create and disseminate when new ways of exploiting works can either enhance or dampen those incentives...” 1634. When policy makers do not “meet the challenge before the harm is done, then… the public will suffer because there will be fewer resources to support the creation of new works.” 1634. Current copyright policies may “offer the public an increased quantity and variety of works of authorship.” 1613. Expanding copyright to new technologies can “enable and encourage authorial entrepreneurship, because authors may be able to rely on these measures to secure the distribution of and payment for their works.” Encouraging this output benefits the public because “authors whom the traditional intermediary-controlled distribution system may have excluded now may directly propose to the public and be compensated for their creations.” 1618.

posted by Noel Le @ 9:53 AM | DMCA

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)