Earlier this year, I recommended the book No Law by David L. Lange & H. Jefferson Powell. I still keep meaning to get around to writing a full review, but the book makes a very compelling argument that copyright law is a clear violation of First Amendment principles. However, rather than wiping out copyright law, the book suggests something of an alternative. In noting that the claim of “exclusive rights” has been bastardized from the original “exclusive rights to profits,” they suggest that no one be barred from using the content of others, with the requirement that profits due to those uses must then be shared with the originator. I have some issues with that conclusion, but it looks like others are investigating that concept as well.
Andrew F alerts us to the latest work by Marshall van Alstyne, who we’ve mentioned before concerning his views on journalism business models and who did a great job at The Free Summit put on by Tech Policy Central, and emceed by me. His most recent paper, co-authored with Gavin Clarkson, explores both how strict intellectual property rights lead to socially inefficient outcomes, and how “fairness” principles could be much more efficient. The paper uses a combination of real world examples, previous research and game theory to make a rather compelling case.
Basically, it explains all the reasons why intellectual property leads to hoarding of information that slows innovation:
Property rights provide incentives to create information but they also provide incentives to hoard it prior to the award of protection. All-or-nothing rights, in
particular, limit prior sharing. An unintended consequence is to slow, not has-
ten, forward progress when innovation hinges on combining disparately owned
private ideas.
As to why this happens, it’s due to the injunctive ability of intellectual property holders to not just stop the specific use of their expression or invention, but effectively everything else built on top of it:
Infringement of copyright provides injunctive relief as remedy. This permits copyright
owners the use of take-it-or-leave-it offers as strategy. The trouble that results from such
a hold-up strategy is that it allows the injunctive rights owner, when bargaining with a
non-owner, to extract nearly the full value of any transaction (with full information it is
full value.) For recombinant works, this affords the last negotiating rights holder undue
influence much as the last negotiating landowner exercises undue bargaining power relative
to other landowners in any effort to develop a multi-parcel tract of indistinguishable parcels
of land. For works of modest value, such as a single sample of a song, image, or video,
negotiation costs can vastly exceed market value. For transformative works, insignificant
inclusions of lesser material can retard or reduce the progress of more valuable material as
when the release of the movie 12 Monkeys was enjoined due to the appearance in several
scenes of a copyrighted chair.
From there, they make the case models that follow on “fairness” and “liability” work much better than a strict “property rights” setup. Along the way, they discuss the study we mentioned in the past about how people view fairness and relative compensation, as well as debunk the myth that if one person can take advantage of another they absolutely will.
The end result is a suggestion not unlike the one in No Law: that rather than setting up a system of artificial property-like rights called copyright and patents, there may be more social and economic efficiency in allowing unfettered usage of expression and inventions, with a system that then requires some sort of attribution and payment for a fair share of any of the profits. That would then actually encourage much greater sharing of ideas and inventions in an effort to get those concepts included more widely.
It’s definitely interesting to think about, and I agree that in many ways it would likely lead to great net benefit than an IP regime, but it could also generate many other problems, especially in situations of independent generation or incidental copying — as well as long, and drawn out legal fights over these situations as well as a determination of what is, in fact, fair. The paper does try to address the latter point with three responses, but I’m sure this won’t be enough for some.
Either way, this is certainly an interesting paper that contributes to this ongoing discussion.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story














Nokia and Yahoo have announced today in New York, a strategical alliance to jointly offer e-mail services, instant messaging, mapping and navigation. The Internet search engine Yahoo and the largest mobile phone maker in the world Nokia have reached a partnership through which Yahoo will offer Web services for Nokia terminals.




When building out the hydrogen highway system in California, New York, Washington DC, Florida or other places the conventional wisdom has to been either build an entire station from the ground up or add a hydrogen fueling pump to an existing gas station.
There is no surprise here. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the safest drivers on the road are in the age group between 64 and 69 years old. A study conducted by the two government agencies shows that teenage drivers are the most dangerous drivers on the road – especially male drivers.
Venus Williams’ outfit gets more attention. She won in the first day of the French Open against Patty Schnyder with consecutive 6 – 3 triumphs. Her win was not the topic for discussion, rather her outfit. She wore a lacy black and red outfit with a corset-like top and a tutu skirt which gave the outfit an illusion of being see-through. USA Today had a poll asking America on what they think of the outfit. The number 1 response that gained 42 percent of the votes said “They should have made her change”. This style that Venus Williams wore for tennis at the French Open was not the first of its kind. She wore the same outfit with a different color last week for the Madrid Open. During the last Australian Open which was held last January, she wore a green skimpy uniform and a similar underwear that she wore in the French Open 2010. At the Sony Ericsson Open, she wore a red spaghetti-strapped dress trimmed with a décor of ruffles. She could make a strange line of outfit with her outfits. Is her secret with her wins lie with the comfort from the clothes she wear? And lastly, what will be her next outfit?