I’m looking at a 2004 paper by Professor Robert Merges, a figure I've followed over the years for his thoughts on arising IP issues, as well as comments on what IP debates should consider more of. The paper, released by Merges with the Cato Institute, is another work that contibutes to free market technology policy in its support of IPRs, and related items like DRM and private incentives in market activity.

Here, Professor Merges argues for the importance of property rights, voluntary contracts and markets over compulsory licensing or forced sharing in early Internet-based music industries. Professor Merges argues, “fears of excessive control of digitial content are overblown.” 6. He admits that IPRs may create “bottlenecks” in digital media, but that “any attempt to circumvent the sometimes slow process of market formation via the mechanism of property rights would likely leave society worse off.” 2.

The best course here is to stick with… property rights, contracts, and markets. These institutions have stood the test of time. They are very likely the best choices in the Internet setting too. 12.

Critics of IPRs, while supposedly advocating free markets or against government regulation are actually arguing against private entities protecting their investments in innovating and creative activity. They are the prime advocates of things Merges warns against, such as forced sharing, often by resorting to examples of where innovation or cultural production has occurred without economic incentives (but failing of course to say why those examples are not profitable:) To wit, Merges provides an historical lesson in markets; that we should enable “market resolution of disputes.” 5.

…we will be judged wise for avoiding abrupt changes in our IP system that replace voluntarism and trade with forced sharing... In the digital realm, we have not yet abandoned the basic building blocks of our creative industries—property rights, contracts, and markets—and have therefore retained the conditions for future growth and diversification. 2.

It is true that property rights confer a measure of control—they would not be much use if they didn’t. But the specter of total, omnipresent control is what has the critics worried. These fears may well be unjustified, however. 5.

Even the strongest (DRM) system one might contemplate falls far short of total control over the information it protects from unwanted copying. 5.

…absolute control over IP is almost unthinkable. A key question is whether a right-holder exerting more control over a protected work might increase the total output of creative works… the total volume of cultural discourse—very broadly defined— may rise under a regime of greater control. 6.

posted by Noel Le @ 7:27 PM | DMCA, DRM & Watermarks, etc., Media: Video, Music...

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