New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
from the time-for-a-change dept
I've argued in the past that copyright is a non-partisan issue, in that the concepts behind fixing a broken copyright system shouldn't be specific to either major political party. Unfortunately, historically, that's meant that there's been bi-partisan interest in helping Hollywood expand the system over and over and over and over again (15 expansions in the last 30 years). However, as we saw over the weekend with the wonderful RSC brief that was released and retracted in a day, there is significant interest in some circles to explore the idea of substantial copyright reform, which includes recognizing that the existing system is not functioning up to the standards set forth in the Constitution.Along those lines, it's interesting timing to see that the Mercatus Center at George Mason University is about to publish a book on why conservatives and libertarians should support copyright reform called Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess. The book was put together by Jerry Brito, and he describes some of what's in the book as follows:
- Yours truly [Jerry Brito] making the Hayekian and public choice case for reform
- Reihan Salam and Patrick Ruffini arguing that the GOP should take up the cause of reforming what is now a crony capitalist system
- David Post explaining why SOPA was so dangerous
- Tim Lee on the criminalization of copyright and the a use of asset forfeiture in enforcing copyright
- Christina Mulligan explaining that the DMCA harms competition and free expression
- Eli Dourado calculating that the system we have today likely far exceeds what we need in order to offer authors an incentive to create
- Tom Bell suggesting five reforms for copyright, including returning to the Founders’ vision of what copyright should be
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
Filed Under: conservatives, copyright, libertarians, reform
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How long before Hollywood calls for your Constitution to be abolished?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is because The Rich have taken full control:
The GOP is decidedly the party of plutocrats, so don't expect them to rush to support unless as means of imposing yet more tyranny under guise of "reform".
Take a moment for Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick and click:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Actual unsolicited testimonial: "Until I read Techdirt.com, I didn't know what shameless self-promotion was!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is because The Rich have taken full control:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is because The Rich have taken full control:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is because The Rich have taken full control:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is because The Rich have taken full control:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is because The Rich have taken full control:
I'll give you props for not insulting Mike though so good job on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is because The Rich have taken full control:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
non-partisan issue
Us vs. Them, instead of whats best for the people.
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: non-partisan issue
Why did such and such a party do nothing for 20 years?
Can this party get something done now?
Why is another party not revealing their stance on the issue?
It's all bollocks as no one wants to just deal with the bloody issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progressives vs. Libertarians on Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progressives vs. Libertarians on Copyright
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlEBh_98lIo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progressives vs. Libertarians on Copyright
Since my primary concern is economic and environmental sustainability, I'll toss this out and hope to get some good libertarian takes on this.
Naomi Klein on Capitalism and Climate Change | BillMoyers.com: "... one of the things about deregulated capitalism is that it is a crisis creation machine, you know? You take away all the rules and you are going to have serial crises. They may be economic crises, booms and busts. Or there will be ecological crises. You're going to have both. You're just going to have shock after shock after shock. And the more, the longer this goes on, the more shocks you're going to have.
"And the way we're currently responding to it is that with each shock, we become more divided. And the more we understand that this is what the future looks like, the more those who can afford it protect themselves and buy their way out of having to depend on the public sector and therefore are less invested in these collective responses. And that's why there has to be a whole other way of responding to this crisis."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arguments for reform suit both "sides"
The simple fact is that something closer to the original copyright just makes much more sense than what we have today, unless you happen to be making lots of money from today's system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being cynical...
Plus it makes the Democrats look out of touch and in Hollywood's pocket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being cynical...
It's an inevitable change of perspective that has built up over 40 years since the copyright system was captured by corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small question
Seriously? There are books coming out pretty much every other month on copyright... This year alone there's been "Copyfraud" "How to Fix Copyright" "Hollywood's Copyright Wars". I forget when "Piracy" came out, but it wasn't that long ago... A few others as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small question
Informative podcast too: http://surprisinglyfree.com/2012/07/17/christopher-sprigman/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small question
Kembrew McLeod is an academic who has been known to slip into media-prankster mode. His Freedom of Expression (R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity is solid and entertaining.
Boldrin and Levine look like pragmatic centrists to me -- Against Intellectual Monopoly is much more indebted to neoclassical economics than to libertarianism.
In a more historical mode, Eric Anderson might (or might not) be described as eclectically progressive -- though I think Pimps and Ferrets owes more to Foucault than any to overt political agenda.
All of these good books are a few years old, and are either free (on-line) or available in very cheap print editions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's good to see the community has had enough and he is put in his well deserved place nearly every post (hidden).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, Mercatus has been pretty reliant on Koch Foundation money. Given that background, I expect some readers will be actively looking for pro-corporate agendas in the chapters of Copyright Unbalanced. Personally, I'm quite looking forward to the book.
Outside the US, libertarianism can include a libertarian left -- simplistically, people who are more worried about corporate power than about government power.
By way of simplistic illustration, a libertarian leftist might be much more concerned about the power of US health insurance companies than about a government-administered national health care system.
And of course, some libertarians think both government and business should be kept on a very short leash -- perhaps as balanced adversaries, and certainly not as allies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
s masnick talking about?
his last paragraph implies (a) the left/progressive side has been the main one calling for copyright reform, but now (b) the "right" is doing so too, as evidenced by the George Mason/Brito book.
Both (a) and (b) seem wrong to me. The left is not agianst copyright. And libertarians are not "the right." If anything they are lcoser to the left/progressives. The problem is that aside from bell this books seems tepid and half-assed, as do most leftist/progressive proposals for IP reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Re-trying:
Masnick writes: "While I still think this should be a non-partisan issue, rather than a strictly partisan one, it's interesting to see one side of the political spectrum popping up at this time to make the argument. Over the past few years, it's seemed like many of the arguments in favor of copyright reform came from the more liberal/progressive side of the spectrum anyway, so hopefully this "balances" out the calls for reform a bit ..."
This implies that (a) the liberal/progressive side has been the main one calling for copyright reform, but now (b) the "right" is doing so too, as evidenced by the George Mason/Mercatus book.
Both (a) and (b) seem wrong to me. The left is not against copyright, any more than the right is. And libertarians, a version of which is represented by the George Mason/Mercatus group, are not "the right." If anything they are closer to the "progressive" side of things, and the main intellectual source of serious criticism of the existing IP system.
The problem is that aside from the chapter by Bell, the proposals in even the Brito book are too tepid, and not radical. Any true reform must be radical and based on recognizing that patent and copyright fundamentally and systematically undermine private property rights and free markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
What about radical reform not based on private property rights but rather on a commons system and on the economics of sharing or gift economies rather than free market? What label would you give that? Does that fall within the libertarian left or something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
It will be interesting if divergent groups unite to end IP protection but then use the results to create entirely different forms of economic distribution. At a minimum I think those on the left would seek ways to significantly reduce income inequality. One way to do that is to encourage rapid dispersion of ideas/technology so that it would be difficult for any company or businessperson to provide unique goods/services for long. To the extent possible, everything would be crowdsourced and collectively owned, with little distinction between "yours" and "mine." It would all be "ours."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources. Therefore, peer production won�t be able to realize its full potential unless access to resources is managed according to its principles. Digital peer production treats knowledge and software as a commons. Likewise, physical peer production needs to manage resources and means of production as commons, utilizing them in a fair and sustainable way and preserving or improving their current state. For this it is important to find modes that ensure that nobody loses out and that everyone�s needs (whether productive or consumptive) are taken seriously."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
I find such anodyne statements to masque or distract from the issue at hand, which is always: who has the right to use a particular contestable (scarce, rivalrous) resource? The libertarian answer, which I agree with, is that the person with the best claim to the resource is the one who was the first to use it or who acquired title to the resouce by contract from a previous owner. Any alternative property allocation rule always ends up taking property away from earlier or better claimants in favor of others; i.e., is a form of theft or wealth redistribution, and is thus immoral and wrong, and inefficient to boot.
"Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources."
Yes. That is why property rights in such resources are establihsed; the question is what property allocation rule is society to have? If it's not the Lockean rule, that means at some point some stronger group wrests possession of already-owned property away from its previous owner. This is just naked theft, might makes right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
My primary concern is how to deal with global environmental problems. I've been reading how some libertarians say that the courts will deal with a property owner whose activities infringe on other people. If a company dumps pollutants into the water, those impacted should be able to collect damages. That's essentially what we have now -- a court system, lawyers, and jails for those who don't pay up. And then for that system to operate, we need taxes or fees to pay for those courts and jails. We end up with long court fights where lawyers try to prove or disprove damages.
I think I would rather see more environmental challenges dealt with as commons. We don't necessarily have to take property from current owners, but we can maintain property currently owned by the state or federal government, and we can enact stricter protections so that those who create environmental damage must pay. If the libertarian system is working properly, BP would be paying quite a bit of money to every entity damaged by the oil spill. Right now Colorado residents are battling fracking because there isn't adequate protection for citizens near fracking operations. There's little way to stop the drillers and not enough adequate provisions when damage to property, water, and air is done.
Seems like we either have more commons or more lawsuits as the world gets more populated and we become more dependent upon each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Of course. If they can prove it. I agree with rothbard: see http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/11/19/justice-and-property-rights-rothbard-on-scarcity-property- contracts/: "It might be charged that our theory of justice in property titles is deficient because in the real world most landed (and even other) property has a past history so tangled that it becomes impossible to identify who or what has committed coercion and therefore who the current just owner may be. But the point of the �homestead principle� is that if we don�t know what crimes have been committed in acquiring the property in the past, or if we don�t know the victims or their heirs, then the current owner becomes the legitimate and just owner on homestead grounds. In short, if Jones owns a piece of land at the present time, and we don�t know what crimes were committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as fully legitimate a property owner of this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow of existing property title only becomes legitimate if the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, existing landowners possess a fully moral right to their property."
"My primary concern is how to deal with global environmental problems."
My primary concern is justice and protecting indivdual human rights. I believe that the best outcome in environmental terms comes from private property rights strongly protected. There is a huge literature on this if you are really intersted. One test for me of someone who is a true environmentalist is whether they are pro-nuclear power or not. People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
If they were on the land first, and we know that they were, then they should be able to claim it was theirs. I don't buy the "I didn't know any better than this" argument.
People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.
For you to make a statement like that means that you see the world in more black-and-white terms than I do. I don't think we think in the same manner. The "if you don't agree with me, I discount what you are saying" approach is one I'll pass on, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
That is not the argument. the argument is that they have a better claim than any other claimant.
See the La. civil code stuff cited in notes 25 etc. of my http://mises.org/daily/3660#note25
"'People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.'
"For you to make a statement like that means that you see the world in more black-and-white terms than I do. I don't think we think in the same manner. The "if you don't agree with me, I discount what you are saying" approach is one I'll pass on, thanks.""
No. It means that nuclear power is obviously better and safer for the environment than other serious competing sources; if you are really an environmentalist, you would be FOR nuclear power, unless you are ignorant--whcih is what I think is the case for most anti-nuke greens. But there are some who know nuclear is better but oppose it anyway, which means their real agenda is not environmentalism but something else. If you worried about "climate change" ( I am not) you should be for nuclear power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
The environmental movement is broader than simply what we will use for energy. Therefore boiling it down to being for or against nuclear power is simplistic.
One of the big issues with nuclear power as it is currently being used is centralized energy generation. Some of us prefer finding ways for as many people as possible to generate their own energy off the grid. There are proposals for small nuclear generators which can power individual houses or neighborhoods, which could be a vastly different approach than we have now. So it is entirely possible to view the current nuclear power industry as antiquated but to still be open to future developments depending on what they are.
Perhaps a better option would be to have a nuclear plant in a very isolated area turning water into hydrogen to replace all uses of fossil fuels. But all the necessary technology is not yet in place. And the fossil fuel industry isn't likely to give up its hold US energy to quickly accommodate a switch to a hydrogen economy. What has killed nuclear power in this country is the economics. It's cheaper to build natural gas electrical plants than to bother with expensive nuclear power plants.
There are some people that are anti-nuke in all ways. There are others who are opposed to building more nuclear power plants which would require big capital investment and would continue to concentrate power ownership within a small group of hands. There are others who are open to solutions, but don't see them readily available at the moment. Rather than waiting for workable nuke solutions, there are clean technologies that can be instituted right now, so they are favored. For example, it's a whole lot easier to put a solar generator in an isolated Third World village than to set up a small, easy-to-run nuke power plant (not that they exist yet anyway).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Well, you have a point, but most greens yammer on about climate change, etc. solar etc. cannot solve this. Nor can geo or wind. Everyone knows this. The choice is simple: starve, or use some mass energy source: fossil fuels like oil, coal, or natural gas, or nuclear. A rational, non-malevolent person would choose to avoid humanity's energy-starvation; and among fossil fuels, if you think they really are leading to global warming etc. (I do not) you would be all for nuclear. But they are not. why?
"One of the big issues with nuclear power as it is currently being used is centralized energy generation. Some of us prefer finding ways for as many people as possible to generate their own energy off the grid. There are proposals for small nuclear generators which can power individual houses or neighborhoods, which could be a vastly different approach than we have now. So it is entirely possible to view the current nuclear power industry as antiquated but to still be open to future developments depending on what they are. "
But you do not hear greens talking about this. they are not even for exploring better nuclear. all they say is "maybe fusion" because they konw it's 50 or 70 years off. So they can hide their misanthropism and technophobia/illiteracy.
My point is: if someone tells me they are an environemntalist, but they hate nuclear or don't even explore it as an alternatively, I konw that they are either stupid, ignorant, or a misanthrope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
My point is: if someone tells me they are an environemntalist, but they hate nuclear or don't even explore it as an alternatively, I konw that they are either stupid, ignorant, or a misanthrope.
You're pretty clear on where you are coming from. My original point is that different groups may come together to get rid of IP protection, but then they are likely to radically diverge on how the use this pool of info to structure the world. I'm most interested in those who seek to break down traditional corporate walls and expand the use of commons. I think the anti-IP, pro-commons folks can find ways to be pretty disruptive by making sure every innovation is available to the widest possible group of people for the lowest possible price and by using decentralized production and distribution, down to the individual level. When technology removes the need for economies of scale, the value of big corporations diminishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
P2P Foundation -- Book review: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America "Likewise, today, the collapse of capital outlay requirements for production in the cultural and information fields (software, desktop publishing, music, etc.) has created a situation in which human capital is the source of most book value for many firms; consequently, workers are able to walk out with their human capital and form 'breakaway firms,' leaving their former employers as little more than hollow shells. And the rise of cheap garage manufacturing machinery (a Fab Lab with homebrew CNC tools costing maybe two months� wages for a semi-skilled worker) is, in its essence, a return to the days when low physical capital costs made worker cooperatives a viable alternative to wage labor.
"The first Great Upheaval was defeated by the need for capital. The second one will destroy the old system by making capital superfluous.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Failed Philosophies of Property Rights | The Firebrand Magazine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
The commons:(co)managing commonly owned resources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rival / non-rival
In a dumbed down nutshell -- rival and non-rival can be thought of as a rough continuum. Rival means only one person can use it at a time. ie: If I'm driving a car, you cannot be simultaneously driving it. Non-rival means any number of people can be using it at the same time. Like, say, a downloaded e-book.
Cheap digital reproduction shoved most copyright-related objects out towards non-rivalrous. Business practices and the law haven't kept pace with the changes.
People that insist on thinking of IP as Property are usually effectively insisting that the rival/non-rival distinction is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]