Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Taken from American Conservative.
A Republican Study Committee policy brief released today to members of the House Conservative Caucus and various think tanks lays out “three myths about copyright law” and some ways to go about correcting what many see as a broken system. Derek Khanna, the RSC staffer who authored the paper, acknowledges an important role for intellectual property while also pointing out how badly the current system has gone off track.
Tragically, this study was very quickly rescinded, within 24 hours in fact of it being known to the public. The stated reason was because it hadn't gone through the necessary review period, which smacked of cowardice more than prudence.
The paper is a quick read, and makes very reasonable suggestions which could easily be reframed to the rhetoric of "fairness." That is, make Big Hollywood™ et al. pay their fair share for maintaining copyright control on creative works. The paper suggests a progressive "tax" scale for maintaining copyright to an upper limit of 46 years of creative control on intellectual property. The paper also points out how the current copyright statues hamper creative development. Before I knew the paper had been promptly rescinded, I thought I was feeling a breath of fresh air within the discourse of copyright laws; that is obviously not the case.
I have two sets of questions, one strategic, the other tactical. Why are conservatives so helpful to those who despise us so much? Why not go for the throat by revising our insane copyright laws, which are essentially written by the industries they protect (industries that are utterly hostile to conservatives)? The paper's ideas stand on their own merits. Our copyright laws are laughable at best, and harmful to the creative process at worst. The paper's suggestions also have the added benefit of potentially undermining institutions that are hostile to our ideas. I hope to see a case made for this paper's ideas by GOP in the future, but I won't hold my breath. Thoughts? I would be especially interested to hear from any expert in the field of copyright law and intellectual property law.
The other question is one of tactics. Would the suggestions of this paper be a wise move in terms of public discourse? The GOP seems to need to change the conversation. Why not start in a realm that would do some real damage to the opposition, undermine Big Hollywood's iron-grip on creative work, and make a good case for free market principles in a realm where everyone has felt the pain of ridiculous copyright laws? The quick lid put on this paper seems to suggest that some elements of the GOP are not prepared to go for the throat. I hope that is not the case for all of us.
- Comment (69)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Yes, but many conservatives are slaves to the idea that ideas are inherently property. The people who hold this view begrudge copyright as a form of government taking. Also too many Republicans assume that businesses must be promoting free markets because they benefit from them. Of course businesses are some of the biggest dangers to free markets.
Feb '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
That's a good point. I hadn't thought that ideas = property had become accepted by some, especially since there is a very good historical case to be made that ideas are not property. I could agree that ideas need some protection, like those outlined in the paper, but not the same protections, or anything really on the same order as actual property.
Apr '11
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
We have debated this on Ricochet often, several times at my instigation. The general gist is that ideas are laborious to generate and labor confers ownership. The thing that offends many the most is the idea that an artist might loose creative control over their characters/stories. There also seems to be a strong belief that expected revenue is the same as received revenue, and any drop in expected revenue is equivalent to loss of received revenue and therefore theft.
If all else fails many conservatives will look to the fact that a significant portion of copyright critics are also people who generally oppose other property rights. We on the right who question the current IP regime are tarred by the unsavory nature of our accidental allies.
Apr '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Jordan
I am in agreement with your point. It reflects a failure of imagination by conservative politicians. There are a great many thoughtful critiques on both the conservative and libertarian themes about how the current copyright structure has distorted the original purposes.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
I don't consider myself a "slave" to the concept of ideas as property, but I do agree with it - or at least to the concept of Authors' rights, as does the US Constitution. (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8)
I also agree that current copyright law needs reformation. However, we need to make the laws objectively fair to all, including the loony left.
It's dangerous to lump all of Hollywood into the "enemy" box. The industry itself isn't the problem, it's the people currently in control. There are many conservatives working in the creative fields struggling to improve our culture. Too many conservatives outside of these fields write them off and betray their efforts. They need our support, not our scorn.
Hollywood used to be a great ambassador of individual liberty and the American way throughout the world. Many dark regions of the globe first experience the light of freedom reflected off the silver screen, or an improvised bed-sheet as the case may be. We can restore that jewel in our crown.
We need to fix Hollywood, not destroy it.
Feb '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
I didn't intend my argument to suggest that Hollywood is totally irredeemable, but, practical speaking, it seems mostly irredeemable at this point.
I fully believe a revision of our copyright laws in the direction of those suggested in the paper (basically back to the Constitutional definition of copyright) would be just to all parties involved.
What I see as propping up Hollywood's absurd grip are ever-lengthening copyright laws which never seem to expire, and a very well-established lobbying group who seem to be able to write their own laws to protect their business model, which resembles more a cartel than an actual business. Revising the laws would facilitate a better media market. I don't think all Hollywood is the enemy, I think Hollywood, the institution, is the enemy.
And, by extension, there are other absurd business models propped up by arcane legislation, like cable television, for instance. The GOP would do well to get in front of these types of issues, since they present structural weaknesses in the Left.
Apr '11
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
So what are the rights of authors? To me it seems much of it is focused on the idea of artistic control . But, this of course is nonsense. As the author's right to write what he chooses does not come from the ideas of copyright, but rather free speech. What authors want is to restrict the use of fictional creations to just themselves. This of course negates the rights of free speech of others, and therefore need justification. The reason is given in the sited part of the Constitution. Thus all our creative rights are limited for the benefit of promoting Art and Science. This limit is only legitimate to the extent in promotes invention and creation.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Art and science are promoted by allowing authors to profit from their endeavor, that is the point of copyright. It's not solely about artistic control (though artistic control is a legitimate concern, not nonsense), it's also about the right to produce and sell material based on the work.
If I write a song or story I own the rights to use that creative work, to sell that creative work, and to control how others use it for a limited duration. Denying that right would require all creatives to donate their lives to society without any expectation of return. As a result, there would be far less creative output; only the independently wealthy would be able to devote the time and effort required for quality product. Creative work is very real, very hard and takes a long time.
...
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
...
It's not just fictional ideas, there are also concrete ideas, such as the design of a mousetrap or other invention. The physical property are the mousetraps themselves, but the design is an idea - an intellectual property. Limiting property rights to solely the physical would allow any manufacturer to use competitors' designs without limit.
There are established but somewhat legally murky rights to use others' works based on Fair Use in certain circumstances. Free speech allows you to say what you will, but doesn't protect all the ways you wish to say it. Free speech certainly doesn't give you rights to my speech. Recognizing copyright doesn't endanger Free Speech at all; some current applications of copyright law might.
The Constitution and its founders recognized this and protect these rights as fundamental, along with all the other rights.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Modern culture is in a bad state, but it's not irredeemable. If it were, we'd as well abandon the country entirely (which some are prepared to do).
There is some language you've used in your post which I find overly broad, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as it were.
i.e. I disagree that "Hollywood the institution" is the enemy. Many (most) in Hollywood are the enemy of conservatives, but the institution used to be a vanguard of conservatism. It can be again.
When people speak ill of Hollywood in general, they are speaking ill of me as much as they are speaking ill of the left. I would ask that you be more careful with your language.
Punitive legislation against an industry hurts members of all political stripes. Denying the rights of people whom you regard as an enemy is wrong, just as denying the rights of people you regard as friends is wrong. Bad law is bad law, no matter what perceived tactical advantage you may gain.
Apr '11
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
NoWayerMan
If I write a song or story I own the rights to use that creative work, to sell that creative work, and to control how others use it for a limited duration. Denying that right would require all creatives to donate their lives to society without any expectation of return. As a result, there would be far less creative output; only the independently wealthy would be able to devote the time and effort required for quality product. Creative work is very real, very hard and takes a long time.
... · 5 minutes ago
The market for original works of art (books, music, movies etc.) is very strong and mostly predicated on peoples disposable income. Since most art is only profitable in a very short time period being the first to market alone probably will guarantee a decent rate of return. Enough to make a living out of it especially for those with talent. I mean look at classical music none of it is copyright protected, yet orchestra musicians make quite a good living.
Even with copyright most artists don't make much money of their art. The artists that benefit the most would probably still be making millions without it.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
I don't have a problem with examining modern copyright law and reforming it to protect all people's rights.
I have a big problem with associating these efforts with a strategic effort to "get" the left. If the law needs reformation, it wouldn't matter which ideology controls Hollywood. Argue the law on its own merit. If you would back the change if conservatives still controlled Hollywood, the conversation will be much more fruitful. If you're only doing it out of vengeful motivation I find it abhorrent and myopic.
Tactically, efforts to take revenge on perceived cultural enemies through legislation will expose you to legitimate critique and make you look petty. Justice is blind, not necessarily right-wing.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Valiuth
The market for original works of art (books, music, movies etc.) is very strong and mostly predicated on peoples disposable income. Since most art is only profitable in a very short time period being the first to market alone probably will guarantee a decent rate of return.
Without copyright protection I have no guarantee I will be first to market, larger institutions and publishing houses would be able to take an unpublished manuscript and print it, or release it digitally and poof - any potential profit for the author is gone.
Especially considering digital authorship, there would be no protection from a customer simply copying the text of a novel and never paying for the book. There's plenty of illegal downloads while copyright still exists. If the law says it's not stealing, nobody would ever buy. The market would disappear because people won't buy what they can get for free in short time - especially if it's legal.
They make money from live performance and the sale of recordings of their performances, which do have copyright protection.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Valiuth
Even with copyright most artists don't make much money of their art. The artists that benefit the most would probably still be making millions without it.
This would be irrelevant, even if it were true.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Valiuth
Since most art is only profitable in a very short time period being the first to market alone probably will guarantee a decent rate of return.
Many artists work in obscurity, creating a large body of work, in the hopes that some day they will be discovered. When they do have a breakout work, suddenly all of their previous work becomes marketable, even if it's decades old. Then their work pays off.
Unless, of course, copyright is abolished an all of their old work is freely distributed without compensation, and all the publishing houses copy the content of their breakout work and sell (or give away) their own versions without any recognition to the author.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Television shows are often unprofitable in their original runs, it's only through syndication rights and ancillaries that they ever see profit - usually years after they were first to market.
Ask Rob if he's still getting royalties from Cheers. Many actors live off these royalty checks, not wealthy, but comfortably. Don't begrudge them their due.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
Movies usually take years to see profit. They're lucky if they break even from box office receipts, much like television shows. Profit comes from ancillary rights: television play, rental, home video. Theatrical release is a commercial for these ancillary sales.
Due to the modern rate of piracy the length of time between box office release and tertiary markets has shortened, but it still can be months or years before profit is realized. Abolishing copyright laws will eradicate any incentive to make movies unless they can be profitable within the theatre. This leaves more power in the hands of the big boys, not less.
Apr '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating abolishing copyright laws. As Jordan notes it is the increasing duration of copyright and the ability of the entertainment complex to protect itself to the detriment of others that is the issue.
Nov '12
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
My recent comments have been direct rebuttals to Valuth's statements. The ones that don't directly quote his comments (#16, #17) are continued arguments against the statement quoted in comment #15, taken from comment #11.
As I've stated earlier (comment #12):
I agree that duration is too long. Copyright reform is probably a good idea.
Valiuth, however, has been questioning the validity of copyright and the very existence of authors' rights; at least it seems so to my reading. His argument is that commercial protection of artistic works are without merit. I disagree wholeheartedly.
I also view it as a direct threat to my livelihood, mostly because it is.
Apr '11
Re: Debating Intellectual Property Protection
I think copyrights have merit, but their merit does not derive from the fact that they affirm a real right. They are I think a utilitarian compromise that seeks to increase the level of compensation of creators. In the field of patents I think they serve to promote openness about methods and design, and in the arts at best they provide a guaranteed income for authors of popular works (though if I understand that may not be the case when artists sign on to work for large companies as they may not be the owners of the copyright).
All the talk about the profitability of various artistic ventures though is probably irrelevant as the compensation schemes in place are now predicated upon current copyright laws and their effect on the markets. Removing them will alter the structure of compensation but I don't think anyone can claim it will remove it.
I do admit that I find no merit to the notion that ideas are owned by anyone, even their supposed originators. Copyright is only moral to the extent it spurs the production and dissemination of the Arts and Sciences.