Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
RSC policy brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It

RSC policy brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It

Ratings: (0)|Views: 49,137|Likes:
Published by Andrew Couts
Republican Study Committee outlines recommendations for how to "fix" U.S. copyright policy
Republican Study Committee outlines recommendations for how to "fix" U.S. copyright policy

More info:

Published by: Andrew Couts on Nov 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Page | 1
RSC Policy Brief:Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it:
 November 16, 2012
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 oncopyright law and possible reforms to copyright law that will lead to more economicdevelopment for the private sector and to a copyright law that is more firmly based uponconstitutional principles.
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
n 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, particularlyduring the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the publicgood 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 isappropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but itis inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights.
Strictly speaking, because of the constitutional basis of copyright and patent, legislativediscussions on copyright/patent reform should be based upon what promotes the
Page | 2
maximum “progress of sciences and useful arts” instead of “deserving”
Copyright is free market capitalism at work:
Copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism. Under the currentsystem of copyright, producers of content are entitled to a guaranteed, governmentinstituted, 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 thatallow for massive damages for violations. These massive damages are not conventionaltort law damages, but damages that are vastly disproportionate from the actual damage tothe copyright producer. For example, Limewire was sued for $75 trillion, based uponSection 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Action enabling such large fines per violation. Thispotential 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
” to the record industry. By
Congress creating an arbitrarystatutory fine for damages the government has implemented its own system fordissuading 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. Copyrightviolators can face jail time, and government agencies are tasked with investigatingcopyright violations and stopping these activities. This may be a good decision or a baddecision, but, it is a form of the government subsidizing the costs of recovering assetsthat may or may not be considere
d to have been “stolen.”
There are other industrieswhere the government has also chosen to subsidize in a similar manner, but the point hereis that this is not a strictly laissez faire capitalistic institution.
The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation andproductivity:
There is surely an argument in favor of copyright, and it is the argument that ourFounding Fathers were familiar with. While the size and scope of current copyrightviolations are vastly disproportionate to anything in previous history, in the 18
centuryour Founding Fathers were familiar with copyright violation. In fact Great Britain wasquite angry at what was perceived to be rampant theft in the colonies of their intellectualproperty in the form of literature.
Page | 3
With this in mind, our Founding Fathers wrote the clause in the Constitution onprotecting content. But they knew that there was a very serious cost for this government-instituted 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 incentivefor content producers to create new content
without the ability to compensate them fortheir work. And with too much copyright protection, as in copyright protection thatcarried on longer than necessary for the incentive, it will greatly stifle innovation. Inaddition, excessive copyright protection
leads to what economists call “rent
which is effectively non-productive behavior that sucks economic productivity andpotential 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 securingauthors 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 termshould the copyright holder still be alive. This is likely what our Founding Fathers meant
when they wrote in the Constitution for a “limited
Gradually this period began toexpand,
 but today’s copyright law bears almost no resemblance to the
constitutionalprovision 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 authors120 years after creation or 95 years after publication.Critics of current law point out that the terms of copyright continue to be extendedperpetually, ensuring that works never actually enter the public domain
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 “limitedtimes.”
Can we ever have too much copyright protection?:

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
liveclive304393 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->