Follow by Email

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Republicans Get Copyright Right -- for 24 Hours

It turns out there are some good Republicans out there.  Some of them had the courage to stand up to one of Congress's biggest and most lavish sponsors:  The Copyright Industry.

I wouldn't say that the Copyright Industry "owns" both parties, but it owns as big a piece of each party as any industry out there.  And since its interests don't usually conflict with those of Congress's other owners, it usually gets its way on its legislative initiatives.  The result has been a ratchet-like increase in the rights of copyright owners over the last 200 years, with an exponential expansion occurring over the last 20 years. All at the expense of the public.

Of course, this Republican act of defiance -- a Policy Brief -- was extremely short-lived.  Cooler and more campaign-donation-minded heads prevailed, and the memo was yanked.

I don't know how many voters out there are "single-issue-copyright" voters, but if this had been part of the Republican platform, I might seriously have considered voting Republican the last time around.  It would be the first example in a long time of a political party taking the side of the public's interest against one of its major sponsors.

Here is a link to the memo.  But just in case that goes away, I'm reproducing the entire memo below:


RSC Staff Contact: Derek S. Khanna, Derek.Khanna@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-0718

This paper will analyze current US Copyright Law by examining three myths on 
copyright law and possible reforms to copyright law that will lead to more economic 
development for the private sector and to a copyright law that is more firmly based upon 
constitutional principles.

1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content:

It’s a common misperception that the Constitution enables our current legal regime of 
copyright protection – in fact, it does not. The Constitution’s clause on Copyright and 
patents states:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to 
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to 
“promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say 
that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation.
This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly 
during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public 
good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the 
content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is 
appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it 
is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights. 

Strictly speaking, because of the constitutional basis of copyright and patent, legislative 
discussions on copyright/patent reform should be based upon what promotes the Page | 2
maximum “progress of sciences and useful arts” instead of “deserving” financial 
compensation.

2. Copyright is free market capitalism at work:

Copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism.  Under the current 
system of copyright, producers of content are entitled to a guaranteed, government 
instituted, government subsidized content-monopoly. 

It is guaranteed because it is automatic upon publishing. 

It is a system implemented and regulated by the government, and backed up by laws that 
allow for massive damages for violations. These massive damages are not conventional 
tort law damages, but damages that are vastly disproportionate from the actual damage to 
the copyright producer.  For example, Limewire was sued for $75 trillion, based upon 
Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Action enabling such large fines per violation. This 
potential award is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since 
Edison’s invention of the phonograph in 1877, and thus in no way corresponds to the 
actual demonstrated “damages,” to the record industry. By Congress creating an arbitrary
statutory fine for damages the government has implemented its own system for 
dissuading copyright violation, above and beyond conventional tort law for a perceived 
“property” like right.

In addition, it is a government-subsidized monopoly in another sense.  Copyright 
violators can face jail time, and government agencies are tasked with investigating 
copyright violations and stopping these activities. This may be a good decision or a bad 
decision, but, it is a form of the government subsidizing the costs of recovering assets 
that may or may not be considered to have been “stolen.” There are other industries 
where the government has also chosen to subsidize in a similar manner, but the point here 
is that this is not a strictly laissez faire capitalistic institution.

3. The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and 
productivity:

There is surely an argument in favor of copyright, and it is the argument that our 
Founding Fathers were familiar with. While the size and scope of current copyright 
violations are vastly disproportionate to anything in previous history, in the 18th century our Founding Fathers were familiar with copyright violation. In fact Great Britain was 
quite angry at what was perceived to be rampant theft in the colonies of their intellectual 
property in the form of literature.

With this in mind, our Founding Fathers wrote the clause in the Constitution on 
protecting content. But they knew that there was a very serious cost for this governmentinstituted monopoly. It is a balancing test to ensure that we have the maximum amount of productivity overall. 

With no copyright protection, it was perceived that there would be insufficient incentive 
for content producers to create new content – without the ability to compensate them for 
their work. And with too much copyright protection, as in copyright protection that 
carried on longer than necessary for the incentive, it will greatly stifle innovation.  In 
addition, excessive copyright protection leads to what economists call “rent-seeking” 
which is effectively non-productive behavior that sucks economic productivity and 
potential from the overall economy.  

This Goldilocks-like predicament – not too little and not too much – was what our 
Founding Fathers had in mind with the phrase “securing for limited Times.” 

Current status of Copyright Law?:

Under the Copyright Act of 1790, the first federal copyright act, it stated that the purpose 
of the act was the “encouragement of learning” and that it achieved this by securing 
authors the “sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending” their 
works for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term 
should the copyright holder still be alive. This is likely what our Founding Fathers meant 
when they wrote in the Constitution for a “limited time.” Gradually this period began to 
expand, but today’s copyright law bears almost no resemblance to the constitutional 
provision that enabled it and the conception of this right by our Founding Fathers. 

 Original Copyright Law: 14 years, plus 14 year renewal if author is alive.

 Current Copyright Law: Life of author plus 70 years; and for corporate authors 

120 years after creation or 95 years after publication.

Critics of current law point out that the terms of copyright continue to be extended 
perpetually, ensuring that works never actually enter the public domain – particularly 
Walt Disney’s production of Steamboat Willey, the first Mickey Mouse film. If this is 
true, if copyright is to be indefinitely extended, then that would effectively nullify Article 
I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution which provides protection only for “limited 
times.”

Can we ever have too much copyright protection?:

Yes. The Federal government has gotten way too big, and our copyright law is a 
symptom of the expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.
Today’s legal regime of copyright law is seen by many as a form of corporate welfare 
that hurts innovation and hurts the consumer. It is a system that picks winners and losers, 
and the losers are new industries that could generate new wealth and added value.  We 
frankly may have no idea how it actually hurts innovation, because we don’t know what 
isn’t able to be produced as a result of our current system. But we do know that our 
copyright paradigm has:

A. Retarded the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry:

Many other countries have a robust culture of DJ’s and remixing, but the United 
States, quite perplexingly as the creator of a large portion of the world’s content, is 
far behind. DJ/remix culture is a democratizing system where self-starters can 
compete based upon merit. In other countries, every 16-year-old with a computer and 
“Virtual DJ” software can remix various songs and compete based upon talent. As a 
result there are thriving DJ/remix markets in Turkey and other countries. These DJ’s 
put their content online or sell mix-tapes (no longer tapes) and there is a meritocratic
system that continues to innovate. 

However, in the United States this culture is heavily retarded.

DJ’s in the United States are mainly live performers, as there are heavy restrictions on 
what they are allowed to release and sell as mix-tapes. There are convoluted rules are 
on what parts of songs that they can sample, often requiring input from lawyers to 
avoid massive fines or lawsuits. As a result, in the United States there are great live 
performer DJ’s, but selling most “real” mix-tapes by small level DJ’s is illegal and 
disincentivized. This stifles most forms of mash-ups or selling of remixed songs by 
independent artists.  

This does not completely eliminate the remix market. While the producing artists 
themselves can remix their own songs, and major DJ’s or other artists can remix other 
people’s songs and pay high level royalties in the $100,000’s-per-song range.
However, this prohibitively high price range stifles most average DJ’s from legally 
releasing their own mash-up or remixed songs. While there is an underground remix 
black market, this market is nothing like it would be if this were legalized.
Since these prospective new remixes would not replace the original songs, but merely 
supplement them and perhaps even increase sales of the original songs, overall 
productivity is greatly hampered by making production of these materials effectively 
illegal.

B. Hampering scientific inquiry:

Scientific papers from the early portion of the 20th
century are still under copyright. . . 

This is illogical, as the purpose of most scientific papers is to further intellectual 
inquiry, and the goal of most authors of scientific papers is to advance their field and 
to be cited in other publications. Many professors are assessed upon the number of 
citations for their major works. For these reasons, keeping their work in what are 
effectively locked vaults defeats the purpose of much of their work. 

Obviously these producers need to be compensated to justify the cost of their 
research, but after around 14 years, most, if not nearly all, of the earning capacity of 
their work has been exhausted, and at that point the overriding interest is in ensuring 
that these works are available for others. While there are exceptions in the law for the 
use of this material for good faith exceptions, there are numerous examples where 
for-profit entities want to use published journal articles but are unable to do so 
without negotiating a payment to the producer of the content.

If however, these older papers were available online for free on Google Scholar to 
anyone to access and use after a reasonable period of time then it would greatly 
increase the availability and utilization of scientific analysis.

C. Stifling the creation of a public library:

Many of our country’s smartest and most successful people were autodidacts who 
taught themselves far beyond that of conventional studies through intellectual inquiry 
of their own and a voracious appetite for reading. Benjamin Franklin conceived the 
idea of a subscription library because libraries allow for information to be 
democratized to the masses. Today the sheer amount of information available to the 
average person is several orders of magnitude beyond that available in 1990, let alone 
in 1790. But still today an enormous amount of intellectual knowledge in locked 
behind physical books, rather than accessible on the general internet.
Project Gutenberg is trying to change that by becoming an online repository for a 
readable/downloadable version of every book available without copyright. Project 
Gutenberg’s full potential will be to provide the greatest amount of intellectual 
knowledge ever assembled in the history of the world to any person with the click of 
a button. 

But this potential of knowledge drops off around 1923 when materials are not in the 
public domain. Imagine the potential for greater learning as a result of obtaining 
books from the 1920-1980 periods. Assigned books in high school classes could be 
all downloaded to a student’s Kindle, rather than bought in a book store. The Page | 6
threshold cost for learning will virtually vanish, and with that, the potential for greater 
learning would skyrocket.  

From a technological perspective, the data size of books is very small - for example, 
every book in the Kindle store could fit on one of the largest available consumer hard 
drives – thus in a few years it may be technologically possible to have every book 
ever written on our computer or IPAD at the click of a button (though not necessarily 
worthwhile because it’s easier to just access the books you need when you need them 
online).

D. Discouraging added-value industries:

While the current paradigm may work great for content producers, it doesn’t work 
great for the creation of other industries. There is enormous potential for other addedvalue industries on top of existing media. For example, in a world where movies, 
television shows and books that were 30+ years old were available in the public
domain, you would likely see new industries crop up to offer a new experience on top 
of this media.

A. Reading a book with pop-up text on extra information on given topics.

B. Watching a movie with “VH1 Pop-up video” add-ons to provide trivia and 
relevant information. There would be thousands of fan generated content 
analyzing Star Wars by providing commentary and analysis.

E. Penalizes legitimate journalism and oversight:

This effect is perhaps the most extreme effect of our current copyright law and the 
most unacceptable.  Current copyright law allows for producers of written materials, 
such as memos or other documents, to claim copyright when they are seeking to hide 
incriminating information. While these materials can be produced in court, producing 
this information in the media or through an oversight organization is often illegal.
Imagine if there were a memo published by a well-known DC think-tank during 
World War 2 and this memo was on the topic of endorsing Nazism and Adolph 
Hitler. Likely if it were published in the 1940’s, few memos would still be around, 
and it would likely fade into history never to be remembered. But if an enterprising 
reporter or political organization were to find a copy of these memos they would still 
likely be protected by copyright. If that reporter or political organization put the 
memo on their website as proof of the think-tank endorsing Nazism and Hitler, then 
they are liable for significant damages for copyright violation. The think-tank is likely 
to sue them or threaten to do so to avoid the memo going public in the first place.Page | 7
This is a disgusting use of copyright, yet there are numerous examples of copyright 
being used in this manner – in order to stifle oversight and hide incriminating 
information. This is not the purpose of copyright, and our democracy functions best 
when the fourth estate is able to provide this type of information to the public. 

Potential Policy Solutions:

1. Statutory Damages Reform:

Copyright infringement has statutory damages, which most copyright holders can and do 
use in litigation (rather than having to prove actual damages).  The government sets a 
range – which is $750 to $30,000 per infringement – but that goes up to $150,000 if the 
infringement is "willful." Evidence suggests that the content holder almost always claims 
that it is willful.  This fine is per infringement.  Those rates might have made sense in 
commercial settings (though even then they arguably seemed high), but in a world where 
everyone copies stuff at home all the time, the idea that your iPod could make you liable 
for a billion dollars in damages is excessive.

Further, this system creates a serious clogging of the courts, because copyright holders 
now recognize that they can accuse anyone of infringement, and include the threat of 
$150,000 awards per violation. But in reality, most people then settle for less than that 
sum, say $3,000. Scaring a large number of potentially innocent people into settling 
should not be an effect of copyright law.

Copyright awards were meant to make the copyright holder whole – they were not 
supposed to be punitive.  Reforming this process is an important element of federal tort 
reform, which unlike other forms of tort reform is clearly within the federal prerogative. 

2. Expand Fair Use:

Right now, it's somewhat arbitrary as to what is legally fair use based upon judicially 
created categories.  One example: parodies are considered protected by fair use but satire
is not. There's an excellent book (and a shorter paper) called Infringement Nation that 
details how things you do every single day are infringing and leave every single person 
liable for billions in damages each year 
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151).

3. Punish false copyright claims:

Because there is minimal or nearly non-existent punishment for bogus copyright claims 
today, false takedown requests are common and have a chilling effect upon legitimate 
speech. While those filing a takedown request have to swear on the threat of perjury, that
swearing is only in regard to whether the work is theirs but not whether the work is Page | 8
actually infringing. The court has said that their needs to be “subjective bad faith” in 
order to be sanctioned for false takedown requests. This often leads to de facto 
censorship.

4. Heavily limit the terms for copyright, and create disincentives for renewal:

Because of the reasons explained in this paper, the constitutional conception of copyright 
was for a limited period of time. For our Founders this was 14 years for copyright with a 
potential renewal for another 14 years if the author was alive. 
Current public policy should create a disincentive for companies to continue their 
copyright indefinitely because of the negative externalities explained in this paper. Unlike 
many forms of government revenue, generating revenue by disincentivizing activities 
with negative externalities is one way for the government to pay for its operations. This is 
a far superior way for the government to generate revenue rather than having a tax system 
that disincetivizes work.

Below is a suggestion for one such proposal:

A. Free 12-year copyright term for all new works – subject to registration, and all 
existing works are renewed as of the passage of the reform legislation. If passed 
today this would mean that new works have a copyright until 2024.

B. Elective-12 year renewal (cost 1% of all United States revenue from first 12 years 
– which equals all sales).

C. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 3% of revenue from the previous 12 years).

D.Elective-6 year renewal (cost 5% of revenue in previous 6 years).

E. Elective-10 year renewal (10% of ALL overall revenue – fees paid so far).
This proposal would terminate all copyright protection after 46 years. This is obviously a 
steep cliff, particularly from the extension of copyright from 36 to 46 years. But the point 
is to discourage indefinite copyright.

Conclusion: To be clear, there is a legitimate purpose to copyright (and for that matter patents). 
Copyright ensures that there is sufficient incentive for content producers to develop content, but 
there is a steep cost to our unusually long copyright period that Congress has now created. Our 
Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with explicit instructions on this matter for a limited 
copyright – not an indefinite monopoly. We must strike this careful Goldilocks-like balance for 
the consumer and other businesses versus the content producers. 

It is difficult to argue that the life of the author plus 70 years is an appropriate copyright term for 
this purpose – what possible new incentive was given to the content producer for content 
protection for a term of life plus 70 years vs. a term of life plus 50 years? Where we have reached a point of such diminishing returns we must be especially aware of the known and 
predictable impact upon the greater market that these policies have held, and we are left to 
wonder on the impact that we will never know until we restore a constitutional copyright system.
Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.


No comments:

Post a Comment