We See Your 'Copyright Contributes $1.5 Trillion' And Raise You 'Fair Use Contributes $2.2 Trillion'
from the pointless-numbers dept
The copyright industry lobbyists absolutely love to throw around the bogus and debunked stat that copyright contributes $1.52 trillion to the economy. That number is derived by taking any business that kinda sorta maybe touches copyright (including things like furniture and jewelry) and then assuming that all of the revenue they make is entirely due to copyright. Yes, that's ridiculous. But, if the copyright lobbyists are going to use such bogus methodology to push their agenda, it seems only fair for those on the other side to use the same methodology. Last week, we wrote about a biased editorial by two newspaper industry lawyers in the WSJ (who failed to note the conflicts of interest), claiming that Google violated copyright law, and attacked the concept of fair use.In response, Ed Black, from the Computer & Communications Industry Association wrote a letter to the editor highlighting those lawyers factual mistakes as well as the importance of fair use throughout the industry (thanks to Yano for sending this in). Most of the (short) letter discusses all the wonderful things that fair use allows, and then has this wonderful line at the end:
Businesses dependent upon exceptions to copyright contribute $2.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. They are responsible for one in eight jobs, for a total payroll of $1.2 trillion in 2006. Fair use is serious business; it is the glue that holds the Internet and new technology together. It is worth protecting.This is fantastic. Of course, the number is just as bogus as the $1.52 trillion used by copyright maximalists, but I think that if they're going to use their methodology to make such ridiculous claims, it's only fair to do the same for the contributions to the economy of exceptions to copyright, and as the CCIA clearly demonstrates, the businesses that rely on weaker copyright contribute significantly more to the economy than those that rely on copyright. Thus, by the copyright maximalists own logic (and numbers), shouldn't we be fighting to expand the exceptions to copyright law?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Important Typo/Correction
"it's only fair to do the same for the contributions to the economy of exceptions to fair use"
should be
"it's only fair to do the same for the contributions to the economy of exceptions to *copyright*"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Important Typo/Correction
you take exception to the original statement's phrasing?
: P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Important Typo/Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't stop there
More to the point, we should be drastically limiting copyright. It's ridiculous that the terms that were in place in an age of moveable type are considered inadequate for an age of instant, perfect duplication. A fourteen year lapsed copyright is far more useful than a CC:ND.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good thing the public domain is locked down so those in the content industry don't have to compete with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chairs
also i never have heard of once i buy a chair should i not wish to build one have to have a EULA and or pay a monthly subscription fee or monthly to use said chair
my bet is 80% of that 1.52 trillion is UTTER BULL$HIT, while tech going into your car my have copyrights what you do with your car after is truely your business and when they try and pull the same crap with cdrs and music and movies on cars the drug addict gangster will revolt, thats why it dont happen.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
Yesterday, on the front page, was a comment that the current economic downturn was caused by people buying houses they couldn't afford. No mention of the fact that, before deregulation, no lender would have lent to those people, because the lender would be too afraid they would be left holding the bag.
I like how these stand-up, tough, risk-taking businessmen can never seem to take responsibility for their own actions. The WSJ and IBD are leading practitioners of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its still off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its still off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its still off
I'm impressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: its still off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh snap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The full 45 page report can be found here
Its actually eye-opening to go through their list of industries that rely on fair use, and how they do. Amusingly there is a fair amount of overlap with the industries that copyright supposedly benefits. It's a good read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is....
So, while both numbers are rather silly, only one of them is even theoretically dependent on the existence of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is....
The fair use in a great number of the industries highlighted by the CCIA are in no way related to use of material where copyright was a motivating factor in its creation. For example:
* The legal industry (which benefits from the idea/expression dichotomy exception, no copyright of US gov works, etc.)
* The insurance industry (which benefits from no copyright on facts / database content)
* investment industry (non-copyright of facts)
* software/electronics/semiconductor industries (reverse engineering exception, no copyright on interfaces, etc.)
...(read the report to see more)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]