In a recent post a commenter whose organization is not in line with me on IP nonetheless was kind enough to acknowledge what he called my "cogent and forceful advocacy on behalf of the principles in which you believe." I'm not sure I'm always cogent, but I do believe passionately in IP first principles, and it's nice to have that acknowledged by someone who has other views.

I was reflecting on this and something else during my ice-filled adventure drive to work this morning. The other thing was something I heard a smart woman in the content business say yesterday, namely that members of Congress recognize the economic engine that is our creative industries, an engine that creates jobs, boosts the GDP and boasts a favorable balance of trade. MPAA's The Business of Show Business highlighted that last week, and I listed some of those figures.

For a member of Congress, that's probably enough to recognize the value of IP. But as I work in an academic setting, I can take it one step further.

Why do we make movies, music and video games that are so good the world is desperate to consume them? After all, no one pirates something not worth watching, listening to or playing. Is there something about Americans that makes them that much more creative, that much more inspired? If this blog were a country song I'd sing "Damned Straight!" right about now. But as much as I'd love to believe we Americans are especially blessed, the evidence points to the contrary.

First, not all successful artists in this country are Americans by birth. We have many foreign-born musicians, game makers, directors and actors here (it seems half of our comedians are Canadian). Shakira shook it up at the Grammys Sunday night; she felt being a Latin American sensation wasn't enough so she's here in the U.S. singing in English. So that suggests our favorable environment for creation, of which IP is a critical part, draws artists. But what of works produced elsewhere?

In the last decade Mexico has stepped up its implementation of and enforcement of IP laws. Is it any coincidence that Mexican-made movies could dominate the Oscars? The friends I made while in Brazil last year would say no. I kept being told that given Brazil's lax enforcement of IP laws and the lack of consistent rule of law (key to investment in future endeavors) there was simply no motivation to create if your ambition lay beyond just taking pleasure in people enjoying your work. If monetary reward was important to you, your best bet was to pull a Shakira and head north.

All of this comes back to the Progress Clause, to providing incentives for the creative element in our society. It's fine if groups out there want to fight for consumers' "freedom" to use creative works however they please, to fight for consumers' "rights" to exercise full control over a work even if they've only paid for a certain set of rights. But I'm reminded of a phrase my colleague Adam uses when describing those seeking to regulate telecom services. He says they seem to begin with this premise: "Assume a network." Jim and I like to borrow Adam's phrase (fair use?) and say that those focused on the end-user of creative works begin with this premise: "Assume content."* That's a pretty big assumption.

--------

* Note that I use the phrase "creative works" rather than content; a director at last week's MPAA event said he didn't like the word "content," it seemed too much like a commodity. He's right. Content is what you get in a cereal box; a creative work is something that could only have come from that creator or collaboration of creators; there is no other creative work exactly like it, unlike corn flakes.