Tag Archives: creativity

from EFF: Enough Already with the Crocodile Tears

Enough Already with the Crocodile Tears

In File sharing

Ed Felten today asks Hollywood to quit shedding crocodile tears over profits “lost” to Internet-enabled piracy — at least while it continues to make more money than ever, while denying movie stars (the “artist”) a more sizable cut:

[Surging profits] undercut the industry’s rent-seeking in Washington, which relies on a narrative in which technology destroys the industry’s revenue stream. If the technology problem is really as bad as the industry says, then it ought to show up in the sales numbers. [...]

It may turn out that the net effect of technology on the industry is neutral, or even positive. If so, then no expansion of copyright law is needed, and a mild contraction may even be in order. Remember, the goal of copyright is not to maximize the profits of any one industry, but to foster creativity by regulating just enough to ensure an adequate incentive to create.

For more on this very topic, check out the comments [PDF] EFF filed with the FCC earlier this month. It provides a number of instances to demonstrate that, despite the shrill rhetoric to the contrary, the entertainment industry’s sky is far from falling.

Intellectual Property and Free Riding

Mark A. Lemley (Stanford University - School of Law) has posted Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

    Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual property is a form of property, and have applied the economic insights of Harold Demsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of intellectual property by others as “free riding.” In this article, I argue that this represents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory of property. The economics of property is concerned with internalizing negative externalities - harms that one person’s use of land does to another’s interest to it, as in the familiar tragedy of the commons. But the externalities in intellectual property are positive, not negative, and property theory offers little or no justification for internalizing positive externalities. Indeed, doing so is at odds with the logic and functioning of the market. From this core insight, I proceed to explain why free riding is desirable in intellectual property cases except in limited circumstances where curbing it is necessary to encourage creativity. I explain why economic theory demonstrates that too much protection is just as bad as not enough protection, and therefore why intellectual property law must search for balance, not free riders. Finally, I consider whether we would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property.


http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_lsolum_archive.html#109388846140921922

Bad Behavior has blocked 639 access attempts in the last 7 days.

>>>>>>> .r246