Category: Copyright Theory

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory

Professor Justin Hughes on “Restating Copyright Law’s Originality Requirement”

The following post comes from Ryan Reynolds, a 3L at Scalia Law and Research Assistant at CPIP.

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterBy Ryan Reynolds

In the 89 years following the publishing of the first Restatement of Law in 1932, the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatements have become an important tool for those in the legal community to better understand different bodies of law. Despite the success of the Restatements, however, their expansion into different areas of law has not always been received with open arms. Such is the case with the Restatement of Copyright. Since the project was revealed in 2015, many have voiced their skepticism of the project, questioning both its utility and whether its supporters truly want to restate the law or instead reform it. It is against this backdrop that Professor Justin Hughes’ forthcoming article, Restating Copyright Law’s Originality Requirement, finds itself situated.

In his forthcoming article, Prof. Hughes provides a detailed review of the draft Restatement’s treatment of one of the threshold requirements for copyright protection: the “originality” requirement. This requirement is established per §102(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which states that “[c]opyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship [emphasis added].” To determine whether a work is sufficiently original to be copyrightable, however, the Supreme Court created a two-pronged test in its seminal 1991 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. opinion. First, the work must be “independently created by the author,” which means that the author created the work without knowingly copying another’s work; second, the work must possess a “modicum of creativity”—which, by all accounts, is a very low bar.

Prof. Hughes concludes that, despite the inspiration for the project “by academics who felt the pace of reform of copyright law . . . has been too slow, [and] in the wrong direction,” the draft Restatement “stick[s] to a centrist, sometimes minimalist, narrative of Feist’s two-step framework.” This notwithstanding, Prof. Hughes notes that there are several “occasional missteps” and “a few points of genuine concern” with the current draft Restatement.

The Draft Restatement’s Treatment of The “Originality Requirement”

As noted by Prof. Hughes, the draft Restatement follows the general framework of Feist with § 5 “‘Originality: In General,’” stating in 5(b) that, “‘[f]or a work to be original, the work must be independently created by its author, as discussed in § 6, and must embody expression that is at least minimally creative, as discussed in § 7.’”

In his review, Prof. Hughes examines § 6 and § 7 respectively, beginning first with § 7’s treatment of Feist’s modicum of creativity requirement.

§ 7’s Treatment of the Modicum of Creativity Requirement

Describing it as the “true heart of the draft Restatement’s originality exercise,” Prof. Hughes commends the draft Restatement for what it does well while also criticizing it on several grounds. As for what he believes it does well, Prof. Hughes approves of the language shift from 7(a)’s, which focuses on “expression that is…minimally creative,” to 7(b) and 7(c)’s, which focuses on the author’s “choices.” While acknowledging that others have criticized the section for “this sleight of hand,” Prof. Hughes believes that this properly reflects the “shift from what courts are supposed to do to what courts actually do [emphasis in original].” As explained by Prof. Hughes, while Feist directs courts to look for a modicum of creativity, the Supreme Court’s 1903 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. decision prohibits judges from making “aesthetic judgments” on what is and is not creative. To resolve this tension, Prof. Hughes explains that courts look to the creative choices in the creation of a work to determine minimal creativity. Therefore, Prof. Hughes believes the draft Restatement’s focus on author’s “choices” accurately reflects the practice of courts; however, as it barely mentions Bleistein, it does not adequately explain to the reader what it is doing.

Further, Prof. Hughes criticizes § 7 for not following its treatment of author’s “choices” consistently where 7(c) is concerned. The relevant language of 7(c) says that “‘[t]he minimal-creativity requirement is not satisfied by choices . . . (such as . . . the tools used to produce the work . . . ).’” Prof. Hughes argues that this provision is incorrect, as “[t]he artist’s choice of which tools to use is part of the creative process. The sculptor’s choice of which chisel to pick up—width of blade, angle of blade, hardness of steel, etc.––may be an expressive choice.”

Another problem Prof. Hughes identifies with the draft Restatement of § 7 is that “Section 7(b) clearly seems intended to limit ‘selection, coordination, and arrangement’ as possible bases for original expression to ‘compilation’ works.” While the current draft of 7(b) states that, “In the case of a compilation [emphasis in original], choices regarding the selection, coordination, or arrangement of elements can satisfy the minimal creativity requirement even if those elements are not themselves original,” the 2018 version “did not have this limitation and was more open-ended.” As expressed by Prof. Hughes, “This intent to limit selection, coordination, and arrangement of bases for minimal creativity to the category of ‘compilation’ works is not an accurate reflection of case law [emphasis in original].”

Prof. Hughes also criticizes the draft Restatement both for what it chooses to say and chooses not to say about creativity. As to the former, while comments to § 7 do not provide a definitive definition of what is or is not original, they do provide a list outlining what minimal creativity requires. While to Prof. Hughes this list is helpful, it is also imperfect and raises concerns. One concern he highlights is its potential to raise the minimal-creativity bar, thereby narrowing copyright’s protections. To this point, Prof. Hughes highlights that, in the draft Restatement’s list, it provides that creativity must be “‘making non-obvious choices from more than a few options.’” As Prof. Hughes breaks down, “[t]hat appellate court dictum is directly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s statement in Feist . . . that the minimal-creativity requirement . . . can be met by ‘some creative spark, ‘no matter how crude, humble, or obvious’’[emphasis in original].”

As to what the draft Restatement chooses not to say about creativity, Prof. Hughes first believes that, to improve, the draft Restatement should “includ[e] . . . a discussion of how choices that manifest individual personality,” such as the decisions of photographers on how they take pictures, are “protectable original expression.” To this point, Prof. Hughes believes that “the most serious shortcoming” of § 7 is the Reporters’ decision not to address Bleistein—which, in the cited words of Prof. Barton Beebe, “‘directly connected ‘originality’ with personal expression.’” Second, Prof. Hughes believes that § 7 should acknowledge “‘intellectual’ choices” as “part of the minimal-creativity equation.”

§ 6’s Treatment of The Independent Creation Requirement

Moving onto his review of § 6, Prof. Hughes first points to its language: “A work meets the independent-creation criterion for originality if the author has contributed some expression to the work without copying that expression from any preexisting work.” While Prof. Hughes believes that the “formulation is ok,” he quickly points out issues he sees with the section’s comments and Reporters’ Notes. First, Prof. Hughes notes that Comment a’s statement “that ‘[f]or expression to be independently created, it must come from the mind of the author’ . . . arguably conflates the two Feist prongs”—a conflation he notes Comment b also likely commits. As Prof. Hughes explains, “the independent production requirement is that the expression be made or brought into the world by a person who had not experienced the same expression previously [emphasis in original],” and therefore “[i]t is not necessary that it ‘come from the mind of the author.’” As Prof. Hughes illustrates, “If a person throws a set of dice one hundred times and writes down the resulting dice totals from each roll on a list, that list was ‘independently-created’ under Feist.”

Prof. Hughes is also critical of the discussion of “novelty” in Comment b, which says that “‘the expression need not be novel or unique.’” While he believes the Reporters’ Notes make an important point, he sees the use of the word “novelty” as simply “too loaded with patent law baggage.” As he explains, the independent-creation standard for Copyright is different from patent law’s “novelty” standard, as “[c]opyright’s independent-creation requirement does not mean that the thing cannot already exist in the world.” Therefore, as there may be confusion in using the word “novelty,” Prof. Hughes recommends removing it altogether.

Lastly, Prof. Hughes also questions the amount of attention the Comments and Reporters’ Notes to § 6 dedicate to nonhuman authorship. After providing an overview of the current limited case law surrounding this issue, he concludes that, while “[t]hese issues are fun conjecture for academics, . . . [they] are so rarefied as to wonder why the draft Restatement discusses them at all.”

Categories
Copyright Theory

What Would Judge Gorsuch Mean for Fair Use?

U.S. Supreme Court buildingOn February 1st, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. The announcement opened the floodgates of prognostication as to how the appellate court judge from Colorado might sway the Court in the coming terms, with forecasters pouring over his past decisions in an attempt to get into the head of the potentially game-changing jurist. And while Gorsuch’s views on intellectual property remain largely unknown, a closer look at his track record provides some insight into his understanding of copyright law that should leave creators and copyright owners optimistic.

In the forty years since the Copyright Act was enacted, courts have expanded the “transformative” fair use doctrine to encompass a variety of uses whose original expressive contribution is difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the underlying work. In particular, courts have applied fair use to cases where the purported fair user merely transforms the purpose of an underlying work, without transforming the underlying work itself and without contributing any original artistic expression. This is a discouraging trend that disregards copyright’s promotion of creativity by encouraging the addition of new expression to old. Fortunately, this trend could be offset by lawmakers and judges with an understanding of the originality requirements of copyright law.

As a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch oversaw 14 cases concerning various forms of IP, four of which involved copyright claims. Despite finding for the accused infringer in all four copyright cases, one of those decisions stands out and reveals an appreciation for the originality and new expression required of copyright–a requirement often ignored by proponents of ever-expanding notions of fair and transformative use.

In the 2008 case Meshwerks v. Toyota, the plaintiff brought a copyright infringement claim against Toyota for the unauthorized use of digital automotive models in a television commercial. The works in question were computerized two-dimensional models created by Meshwerks and based on existing Toyota vehicle designs. Though the parties had originally contracted for the designs to be used on Toyota’s website, Toyota began running TV ads featuring the designs, and Meshwerks brought an infringement claim based on the unauthorized use.

The District Court in Utah granted summary judgment in favor of Toyota, finding that Meshwerks’ designs were not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection. Meshwerks then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado, where Gorsuch had served since his confirmation in 2006.

Approaching the question of originality central to the case, Gorsuch agreed with the district court that the Meshwerks models contributed no new expression to Toyota’s preexisting designs and therefore were not eligible for copyright protection. In the opinion, Gorsuch refers to the “sine qua non of copyright” that requires at least a degree of originality in protectable works of authorship so that copyright will “reward[ ] (and thus encourag[e]) those who contribute something new to society.” The decision goes on to address Meshwerks’ depiction of Toyota’s three-dimensional physical objects in a two-dimensional digital medium, asserting that the “putative creator who merely shifts the medium in which another’s creation is expressed has not necessarily added anything beyond the expression contained in the original.”

Though Meshwerks didn’t involve fair use claims, Gorsuch’s focus on the lack of original expression in simply shifting mediums reflects the Supreme Court’s articulation of transformative fair use in Campbell v. Acuff Rose, a case that he experienced first hand as a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy. Campbell involved the unauthorized parody of a popular Roy Orbison song, and in its fair use deliberation the Court focused intently on “whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation . . . or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is ‘transformative.’” (emphasis added). The Court found that if the new work sufficiently transforms the original through the additional of new expression, it may qualify as fair use.

But the idea of what qualifies as “transformative” has come to include works of transformative purpose, which often are little more than extensive, for-profit acts of wholesale copying of entire works that merely offer the underlying works in a new context. The transformative purpose theory has been applied to the mass scanning and digitization of copyrighted materials for projects such as Google Books, where the creation of a searchable database is considered transformative, despite the fact that the underlying works were not transformed in any original or expressive way. This change in context is effectively the same as the shifts in medium denounced in Meshwerks, and Gorsuch’s ideas about the need for new and original expression not only echo the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Campbell, but also reflect an understanding of the core principle of originality in copyright law.

As the digital age enables copying at the click of a mouse, it’s important to recognize the limits of fair use and realize that while an argument could be made that some of these recent acts of copying are transformative, others are dangerously close to the mere shifts in medium Gorsuch warned against in Meshwerks. Some instances of format-shifting that have been found to be fair use—such as converting full-size images to thumbnails in a search engine—provide an example of unauthorized uses that could benefit from a Gorsuch-style analysis of originality. While few would argue that the owner of a legitimate copy of an album or movie shouldn’t be able to transfer the work to different devices, allowing for a broad fair use application to format-shifting creates a slippery slope for shifts in medium that add no original expression.

Fortunately, despite pressure from groups who would like to see an expansion of fair use that would effectively annihilate copyright law, the Copyright Office recently refused to adopt an exemption that would have allowed broad, noncommercial format-shifting of motion pictures distributed on DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and downloaded files. The Office’s final rule found that proponents of the exemption “failed to establish a legal or factual record sufficient to establish that the space- or formatshifting of audiovisual works, e-books, and other copyrighted works constitutes a noninfringing use,” and that “fair use, as it stands today, does not sanction broad-based space-shifting or formatshifting.” Notwithstanding its refusal to grant the exemption, the Copyright Office recommended that format-shifting policy judgments be left to Congress, further highlighting the need for leaders who understand the goals of copyright law.

As different–and often misguided–theories of what constitutes fair use flood the internet during Fair Use Week, it’s important to acknowledge the doctrine’s purpose as a tool to promote the combination of original expressive works and honor the goals of copyright law. As Gorsuch says in Meshwerks, copyright law intends to encourage those who contribute something new to society, “while also allowing (and thus stimulating) others to build upon, add to, and develop those creations.” Gorsuch’s words invoke the same principles endorsed in Campbell, which says, “[f]rom the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. . . .”

As copyright experts have pointed out (see here, here, and here), many of those celebrating fair use this week misunderstand the doctrine and want the public to believe that copyright law and fair use are at odds. It’s a false dichotomy that betrays the purpose of copyright law and risks devaluing the original works whose expressions truly enrich society. It’s a risk that could threaten both the quality of future works and the creative ecosystem they facilitate, but it’s a risk that can be offset by leaders, advocates, and judges with an appreciation for the true intent of copyright law and the fair use doctrine.

Categories
Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory Infringement International Law Internet Legislation Uncategorized WIPO

European Union Draws a Line on Infringing Hyperlinks

Cross-posted from the Mister Copyright blog.

a gavel lying on a table in front of booksLast week, the European Court of Justice—the judicial authority of the European Union—issued an anticipated decision in the Sanoma hyperlinking case, declaring that commercial linking with knowledge of unauthorized content constitutes copyright infringement. The opinion comes after years of similar cases in Europe stirred debate over whether linking to pirated works was a ‘communication to the public’ and therefore infringing, and provides a sensible test that protects the works of authors and creators while ensuring the internet remains a bastion of free speech.

Sanoma involved the popular Dutch news and gossip site GeenStijl, which ran an article in 2011 that included links to an Australian website where copyrighted Playboy magazine photos were made available. The photos were published on the Australian website without the consent of Sanoma, Playboy’s editor and copyright owner of the photos at issues, but taken down after the site was notified of their infringing nature. Despite similar notifications, GeenStijl refused to remove the hyperlinks and actually provided links to another website hosting the unauthorized photos after the Australian website took them down.

Sanoma brought a copyright infringement claim against GS Media, which operates the GeenStijl website, and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether hyperlinks represent the communication of a work to the public. According to an earlier EU directive, any communication to the public of works protected by copyright must be authorized by the copyright owner. Due to the ubiquity of links and hyperlinks on the Internet, a ruling classifying them as communications to the public would have major ramifications for anyone linking to unauthorized content.

In its judgment, the European Court of Justice found that the concept of ‘communication to the public’ requires individual assessment and laid out the following three factors that must be considered when determining whether a link or hyperlink qualifies.

1) The deliberate nature of the intervention – According to the Court, “the user makes an act of communication when it intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of its actions, in order to give access to a protected work to its customers.”
2) The concept of the ‘public’ covers an indeterminate number of potential viewers and implies a large number of people.
3) The profit-making nature of a communication to the public – The Court explains that when hyperlinks are posted for profit, “it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.”

Applying these criteria to Sanoma, the Court found that because GS Media runs a commercial website that makes money from advertising, it is undisputed that they posted the hyperlinks for profit, and that it is also undisputed that Sanoma had not authorized the publication of the photos. It also found that because they were notified by Sanoma and continued to repost links after the original source website took down the content, GS Media was aware of the infringing nature of the photos and “cannot, therefore, rebut the presumption that it posted those links in full knowledge of the illegal nature of that publication.” The Court concluded that by posting the links, GS Media therefor effected a ‘communication to the public.’

The Court goes on to detail its desire to maintain a fair balance between the interest of copyright owners and authors and the protection of the interests and fundamental rights of Internet users, “in particular their freedom of expression and of information, as well as the general interest.” After providing the criteria for assessing whether a link qualifies as a communication to the public, the opinion emphasizes the important role hyperlinks play in the exchange and free flow of information over the internet, and clarifies that linking—even to unauthorized content—is not a communication to the public if there is no profit motive or knowledge of the infringing nature of the linked-to works. Even so, it’s important to note that not-for-profit hyperlinking may still be considered a communication to the public if the person posting the link knew or should have reasonably known that the content was posted without authorization.

Perhaps most surprising about the Court’s decree is the relative approval by both copyright owners and supporters of the rights of those posting links. While it speaks to the reasonable approach the Court has taken in determining what qualifies as a communication to the public, it may also represent a hesitation to condemn or praise the order due to a significant ambiguity. It’s not entirely clear who carries the evidentiary burden of proving whether an individual knew or should have reasonably known certain content was posted on the Internet without authorization. If copyright owners and authors are forced to prove a user knew or should have known content was unauthorized every time they attempt to remove links that can appear online incessantly, it could render the new directives ineffectual in protecting creative works.

Regardless of the uncertainly surrounding this burden of proof, the current test seems to strike a balance that holds commercial websites more accountable, while allowing for some flexibility for the general public. With debates over the effectiveness of notice and takedown intensifying in the United States, the EU’s decision on communications to the public should be recognized as workable approach to dealing with infringing hyperlinks. As the United States Copyright Office admits in its 2016 study on the making available right, jurisprudence in the US regarding offering access to content hosted elsewhere on the Internet through hyperlinking is less developed as some foreign jurisdictions. But the study acknowledges the progress made in the EU, and emphasizes the need to include ‘offers of access’ in the crucial making available right.

Despite semantic differences, the EU and the US are both moving towards systems that will impose greater accountability for posting links to unauthorized works. The EU’s directive makes clear that commercial hyperlinking to unauthorized content is indeed a communication to the public and therefor copyright infringement, while ensuring that the free flow of information through general public linking will not be threatened and the Internet will remain unbroken. It’s an approach that represents the greater goals of copyright law around the world, and other jurisdictions should follow the lead of the EU when crafting copyright policies that address the intricacies of the Internet.

Categories
Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory Infringement Intellectual Property Theory Internet Reasonable Royalty Uncategorized

Despite What You Hear, Notice and Takedown is Failing Creators and Copyright Owners

cameraIn a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Professors Chris Sprigman and Mark Lemley praise the notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as “a bit of copyright law worth saving.” They argue that Section 512 of the DMCA continues to serve its purpose of balancing the rights of copyright owners and creators with those of Internet service providers (ISPs), while leaving both sides only “slightly disappointed.” Satisfying these two groups is indeed a difficult charge, but it’s simply disingenuous to suggest that creators and copyright owners are satisfied with a system so clearly in need of an overhaul.

As the Copyright Office embarks on its review of the DMCA, supporters and critics of the nearly twenty-year-old doctrine are weighing in on its effectiveness in addressing online infringement. Sprigman and Lemley claim that the “process has worked well for years,” and that the result of shifting more enforcement burden to ISPs “could be a broken Internet.” But for those creators and copyright owners who have their works resurface online just minutes after they are taken down, the Internet is already “broken.” The fact that piracy continues to intensify, despite incredible efforts to have infringing content taken down, shows that notice and takedown is largely ineffective.

As CPIP Senior Scholar Sean O’Connor testified before Congress, the notice and takedown system is not working for any of its intended beneficiaries. The constant game of whack-a-mole renders the system essentially futile for copyright owners and creators, and it creates significant burdens for ISPs that want to comply—especially small to mid-level companies that can’t afford compliance staff. Worse still, by shielding service providers from liability, the DMCA creates perverse incentives where there’s little downside to ignoring infringing content. In fact, reviewing content could lead to an ISP having knowledge of infringement and losing its safe harbor.

Now that the Copyright Office’s review is underway, it’s somewhat strange to see some supporters claim that all is well. But has anything actually changed since the Office announced its study?  Of course not. The whack-a-mole problem remains, and the knowledge standards are still interpreted broadly to disproportionately favor ISPs. When one side says the system is working and the other side says it’s broken, the truth is that the system is not working well for everyone. Sprigman and Lemley can claim that the DMCA is “worth saving” only by downplaying the true plight of creators and copyright owners.

A concrete example of this struggle comes from the comments filed by Universal Music Group (UMG) as part of the Copyright Office’s study. UMG describes the painstaking efforts devoted to protect just one artist’s creative work. In October of 2014, UMG and Big Machine Records launched a joint offensive to protect Taylor Swift’s “1989.” A staff of UMG employees dedicated 100% of their time and resources to manually search for infringements on YouTube, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, and through March of 2016, they had sent over 66,000 DMCA takedown notices. Despite their considerable efforts, over 500,000 links to the album were identified, and “1989” was illegally downloaded nearly 1.4 million times from torrent sites.

Of course, this type of effort would be impossible to replicate for any works other than those that attract such massive attention. For most artists, the burden of monitoring the Internet and sending takedown notices would fall entirely on their shoulders, with no guarantee of putting a stop to the theft of their works. Sprigman and Lemley ignore these problems, instead claiming that since copyright owners sent “more than 500 million takedown requests just to Google last year,” we know that the “system is a powerful tool against pirated content.” That would be great, if true, but the reality is that those notices barely made a dent.

Sprigman and Lemley claim that the “genius of the DMCA” is that it “enables entertainment companies to turn piracy into legitimate revenue.” They give the example of “YouTube’s Content ID system,” which “gives copyright owners the opportunity to ‘claim’ their work and share in any advertising revenue rather than pull it off the site.” From the perspective of creators and copyright owners, the only “genius” of this system is that YouTube can legally present them with an unfair choice—suffer infringement and get nothing or monetize and get next to nothing.

While Sprigman and Lemley praise the “more than $1 billion” paid out by YouTube, the real question is how much more copyright owners and creators would have been paid in a properly functioning market. YouTube is consistently teeming with infringing videos—one recent report revealed that over 180 million infringing videos had been removed in 2014 alone. And the artists that YouTube’s largess supposedly benefits are loudly complaining about their exploitation. If Content ID is so great, why are so many creators and copyright owners upset with the arrangement? The monetization Google offers to copyright owners and artists is less than half of the royalties paid out by streaming services like Pandora, an amount that artists have denounced as already inequitable.

In her excellent piece on the fictions of the Content ID system, Grammy-winning artist Maria Schneider exposes Content ID as a way for Google to cash in by actually legitimizing and perpetuating piracy. She explains that a majority of creators that opt for monetization realize miserable percentages of ad revenue, and the continued illegal uploading of their music and content drives billions of users to YouTube’s platform. YouTube has turned the weakness of the DMCA into a system that exploits artists while offering embarrassingly lower royalty rates than what would be negotiated in a free market.

The current situation is untenable, and if change means “breaking” the Internet, then we should pull out the pickaxes and get to work. A system of notice and staydown, rather than just takedown, would help alleviate the constant and seemingly ineffectual vigilance required by the current system. By removing all copies of a protected work and blocking inevitable re-postings, ISPs would honor the original purpose of the DMCA while actually doing their part to earn the protection of the safe harbor provisions. Only by ensuring that targeted works do not resurface will ISPs respect the rights of those without whose content they would cease to exist.

How anyone can honestly say that the current notice and takedown system is working for copyright owners and creators is mystifying given the constant calls for reform from creators and the numerous critical comments filed with the Copyright Office. The incredible magnitude of takedown notices sent and the seemingly unstoppable reappearance of infringing works online are a clear signal that the system is completely failing those it was meant to protect. Creators and copyright owners deserve a better chance at protecting the fruits of their labors, and the DMCA needs to be changed so that it truly is a system “worth saving.”

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory Internet Uncategorized

Ninth Circuit Gets Fair Use Wrong to the Detriment of Creators

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Lenz v. Universal is out, and it’s a doozy. The main issue in the case is whether a rightholder has to consider fair use before sending a DMCA takedown notice. Section 512 requires the sender to state that she “has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Section 107 says that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” The question is whether fair use, which “is not an infringement” under Section 107, is therefore “authorized by . . . the law” under Section 512.

The court concludes that Section 512 “unambiguously contemplates fair use as a use authorized by the law.” This means that rightholders in the Ninth Circuit are now obligated to consider and reject fair use before sending a takedown notice. The court’s new spin on the DMCA places additional obstacles in the way of rightholders—particularly individual creators. The system is already confusing and onerous, and now it burdens people who are not lawyers with the duty to reach legal conclusions. The DMCA notice and takedown regime is a joke, often providing creators and rightholders less than a few minutes of relief before infringing works are reposted, and this opinion only makes the problem worse. But rather than rehash commentary you can read elsewhere, I want to highlight one startling error in the court’s reasoning.

In a bizarre section of the opinion, the Ninth Circuit declares that fair use is not an affirmative defense that excuses infringement: “Given that 17 U.S.C. § 107 expressly authorizes fair use, labeling it as an affirmative defense that excuses conduct is a misnomer[.]” In support, the court purports to quote a footnote from the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Bateman for the proposition that fair use is a right:

Although the traditional approach is to view “fair use” as an affirmative defense, . . . it is better viewed as a right granted by the Copyright Act of 1976. Originally, as a judicial doctrine without any statutory basis, fair use was an infringement that was excused—this is presumably why it was treated as a defense. As a statutory doctrine, however, fair use is not an infringement. Thus, since the passage of the 1976 Act, fair use should no longer be considered an infringement to be excused; instead, it is logical to view fair use as a right. Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is clear that the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.

This is extremely misleading. The Ninth Circuit makes it sound like the Eleventh Circuit rejects the notion that fair use is an affirmative defense that excuses otherwise infringing conduct. The reality is that the Eleventh Circuit does no such thing. Here’s the full footnote from Bateman, with a paragraph break added:

Fair use traditionally has been treated as an affirmative defense to a charge of copyright infringement See Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, ––––, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1177, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (stating that “fair use is an affirmative defense”). In viewing fair use as an excused infringement, the court must, in addressing this mixed question of law and fact, determine whether the use made of the original components of a copyrighted work is “fair” under 17 U.S.C. § 107. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2230, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (citing Pacific & Southern Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1495 n. 8 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1867, 85 L.Ed.2d 161 (1985)).

Although the traditional approach is to view “fair use” as an affirmative defense, this writer, speaking only for himself, is of the opinion that it is better viewed as a right granted by the Copyright Act of 1976. Originally, as a judicial doctrine without any statutory basis, fair use was an infringement that was excused—this is presumably why it was treated as a defense. As a statutory doctrine, however, fair use is not an infringement. Thus, since the passage of the 1976 Act, fair use should no longer be considered an infringement to be excused; instead, it is logical to view fair use as a right. Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is clear that the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.

The Ninth Circuit here cut out the first half of the footnote, where the Eleventh Circuit quotes binding Supreme Court precedent explicitly saying that “fair use is an affirmative defense” and then explains what must be done when analyzing such an “excused infringement.” Even worse, the Ninth Circuit uses an ellipsis to cut out the part in the second half of the footnote where Judge Birch, who authored Bateman, makes clear that he’s “speaking only for himself” when he says that fair use is not an “infringement to be excused.” The Ninth Circuit pretends to be adopting the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning, when in fact it’s rejecting it.

Judge Birch himself even reiterates the point five years later in his opinion for the Eleventh Circuit in the Suntrust case. In discussing the opinion of the court, he refers to the defendant’s “affirmative defense of fair use.” But then in the accompanying footnote, he likewise says that it’s only his personal opinion that fair use is a right. Here’s what he writes:

I believe that fair use should be considered an affirmative right under the 1976 Act, rather than merely an affirmative defense, as it is defined in the Act as a use that is not a violation of copyright. See Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1542 n. 22 (11th Cir.1996). However, fair use is commonly referred to as an affirmative defense, see Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1177, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), and, as we are bound by Supreme Court precedent, we will apply it as such.

Judge Birch fully understands that fair use is an affirmative defense and that binding Supreme Court precedent compels him to “apply it as such.” And twice he has followed that precedent when writing for the Eleventh Circuit. Yet, the Ninth Circuit here makes it sound like it’s agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit in holding that fair use is a right and not an affirmative defense.

The Eleventh Circuit has even explicitly said that Judge Birch’s view is not the law in that circuit. In an opinion from 2010, the Eleventh Circuit rejects an argument made by the defendant that “fair use is merely a denial of copyright infringement rather than an affirmative defense[.]” The defendant had cited Judge Birch for the proposition, but the Eleventh Circuit notes that “a close reading of Judge Birch’s comments reveal that he was expressing his personal views, not the views of this Court,” and it again holds that “the fair use of copyrighted work is an affirmative defense and should be pleaded as such.”

It’s simply disingenuous for the Ninth Circuit to claim that fair use is not an affirmative defense in the Eleventh Circuit. It is an affirmative defense there and in every other circuit because the Supreme Court has said it’s so. Judge Birch doesn’t get to overrule the Supreme Court, and neither does the Ninth Circuit. Yet, that’s what it purports to do here in Lenz v. Universal.

Categories
Commercialization Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Law and Economics Uncategorized

Copyright’s Republic: Promoting an Independent and Professional Class of Creators and Creative Businesses

By Mark Schultz and Devlin Hartline

The following essay is the first in a series of CPIP essays celebrating the 225th anniversary of the Copyright Act by recognizing the rich purposes, benefits, and contributions of copyright. This series of essays will be published together in a forthcoming collection entitled “Copyright’s Republic: Copyright for the Last and the Next 225 Years.”

The current academic and policy discussion of copyright focuses on balancing the gross economic benefits and harms of copyright. A more complete understanding of copyright can account for both the needs and rights of individuals and the public good. Copyright is important because it helps creators make an independent living and allows them to pursue and perfect their craft. In short, it enables a professional class of creators.

The creative industries benefit from this independence too. They must find a market, but they are not beholden to anybody but their customers and shareholders in choosing what creative works to promote. This enables a richly diverse cultural landscape, with movie studios, television channels, record labels, radio stations, and publishers specializing in vastly different types of material.

To understand the importance of a professional class of creators, it’s helpful to understand the paradoxical role of money in creativity. While some are quick to say, “It’s not about the money,” in some essential ways, it really is about the money. Certainly, for some creators, the proposition is straightforward. As the eighteenth-century poet Samuel Johnson famously and cynically proclaimed: “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” For countless others, however, creative endeavors hardly bring riches. And even commercial creators frequently leave money on the table rather than do something they find distasteful. Nevertheless, money is important.

This seeming paradox can be resolved by considering the role of money overall in creative work. We can take creators at their word: There are many nonmonetary factors that influence and incentivize creativity, such as love, independence, curiosity, and passion. In fact, thinking about the money can hurt the creative process. But while creators may not “do it for the money,” the money is what makes it possible for them to spend their time honing skills and creating high-quality works. The money endows a professional class of creators and the various creative industries and channel partners that support them. This vibrant ecosystem – empowered by copyright – generates a rich diversity of cultural works.

Creative individuals, like every other human being, need to eat, and, like most of us, they need to work to eat. The real question is, what kind of work are they able to do? Some notable creators have worked in their spare time, but many of the greats thrive most when they can merge their avocation with their vocation. They get better at creating when their work is creation.

There is, of course, more than one way to fund professional creation – patronage, tenured university teaching, and commercial markets founded on copyright are notable ways to do it. One of the virtues of a commercial property rights system is that it fosters creative independence.

The independence afforded by a commercial system based on property rights is highlighted by contrasting it with the greater constraints under other systems. Before the first modern copyright statute passed nearly three centuries ago, many creators depended heavily on the patronage system. Wealthy patrons funded creative efforts by either commissioning works directly or employing creators to staff positions where they were given time to develop new works. To be sure, many great works were produced under this system – the musical compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach and Joseph Haydn stand testimony to this fact.

However, the economic benefits of patronage often came at the expense of the personal autonomy and integrity of these creators. As the old adage goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Sometimes these constraints were quite direct. When Johann Sebastian Bach attempted to leave the service of one of his patrons to go work for another, the former patron refused to accept his resignation and briefly had him arrested.

More important, patrons had tremendous say in the work of composers. They could decide what and when the composers wrote. They might not appreciate the value of the works created for them. For example, Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos are now recognized as works of genius. Unfortunately, the noble to whom they were dedicated, Christian Ludwig, the Margrave of Brandenburg, was apparently indifferent. The score sat on his shelf, unperformed and unappreciated, for decades. The concertos were not published until nearly 150 years later, after being rediscovered in an archive.

For these reasons, many composers dreamed of financial independence. For example, the composer Joseph Haydn once celebrated leaving behind the patronage of the Esterhazys, which was rather secure and relatively undemanding. Haydn moved to London, where he became the eighteenth-century equivalent of a successful rock star – in demand for his services and making lots of money. London had a private market – not yet so much supported by copyright and publishing as by private commissions and paid performances. In any event, Haydn prospered. In fact, at one point he wrote letters urging his friend Mozart to join him in London as soon as possible, unabashedly rhapsodizing over the money to be made there.

Still, he was now on his own, earning his own pay rather than being kept by a patron. For Haydn, artistic independence trumped economic security:

How sweet this bit of freedom really is! I had a kind Prince, but sometimes I was forced to be dependent on base souls. I often sighed for release, and now I have it in some measure. I appreciate the good sides of all this, too, though my mind is burdened with far more work. The realization that I am no bondservant makes ample amend for all my toils.

Haydn, Letter to Maria Anna von Genzinger, September 17, 1791

The modern copyright system, beginning with the English Statute of Anne in the early eighteenth century, freed creators from the restrictive patronage system. Like patronage, copyright offered creators the financial support they needed so that they could devote themselves to their craft. Unlike patronage, however, it gave them much-needed personal autonomy and artistic independence.

Beethoven, a young contemporary and student of Haydn working at the end of the patronage era, was able to support himself. His facility at performing his own difficult work helped him make a living. But he also used and supported copyright. He would often publish his works first in England to ensure that they received copyright there. He also lobbied the German states for a copyright law.

For Beethoven, too, money was important for the artistic independence it provided:

I do not aim at being a musical usurer, as you think, who composes only in order to get rich, by no means, but I love a life of independence and cannot achieve this without a little fortune, and then the honorarium must, like everything else that he undertakes, bring some honor to the artist.

Ludwig van Beethoven, Letter to publisher, August 21, 1810

The era of patronage was long ago, but human nature has not changed in the decades and centuries since. Creators still face the dilemma of trying to support themselves while maintaining independence. Every economic arrangement imposes some constraints, but some impose more than others.

A good example of how modern copyright enables individual creators to enjoy independence while supporting themselves is provided by the career of photographer Michael Stern. Stern is a hard-working creative entrepreneur – one 30-minute video he made required 103,937 photographs and 900 hours to produce. Stern doesn’t depend on subsidies or grants; rather, he values the independence he gets from being self-employed. He explains:

“The real benefit of being a self-employed photographer,” he says, “is that I can move through life on my terms and do what I want in the way I want to do it. That freedom drives me.” But, it’s not for everybody, he warns. “Nobody loves you like your mother, and even sometimes not even her. So ya gotta do it for yourself. If you don’t, you won’t have the drive needed to reach your goals.”

Instead of creating works that conform to the limited demands of their patrons, creators supply their works to the marketplace, where the demands of consumers are far more diverse. This proves beneficial to creators and society alike. Creators from all walks of life and with all sorts of interests can find the market that will support them, and this fosters a rich cultural landscape encompassing multiple political and social views.

Copyright fulfills its constitutional purpose of promoting progress by incentivizing creators through the grant of marketable rights to their works, but these rights do more than simply lure creators with the hope of economic benefits. Just as crucially, these rights endow creators with substantial personal autonomy while respecting their individuality and dignity. This fosters a creative environment conducive to the creation of high-quality works with enduring social value.

Copyright is a market-based system that supports a professional class of creators who rely on the value of their rights in order to make a living. These marketable rights have also given rise to entire creative industries that lend critical support to professional creators, and through the division of labor these industries enable professional creators to accomplish great feats that would be impossible if they worked alone.

The numbers testify to copyright’s success in helping to create a professional class of creators in the United States. As a recent report on the creative industries enabled by copyright found, there are 2.9 million people employed by over 700,000 businesses in the United States involved in the creation or distribution of the arts. They accounted for 3.9 percent of all businesses and 1.9 percent of all employees.

This creative ecosystem enables professional creators to produce the sorts of high-quality works that society values most. The popularity of these works in the marketplace makes them commercially valuable, and this in turn compensates professional creators and the creative industries that support them for creating the works that society finds so valuable.

This virtuous circle benefits creators and the public alike – just as the Framers had envisioned it. Copyright is not only doing its job, it is doing it well. The number of works available in the market is incredible – certainly more than anyone could ever possibly consume. And the diversity of voices able to connect with audiences in the marketplace makes our cultural lives all the more fulfilling.

Categories
Commercialization Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Law and Economics Uncategorized

Copyright’s Republic: Copyright for the Last and the Next 225 Years

By Mark Schultz and Devlin Hartline

This past Sunday marked the 225th anniversary of the first U.S. Copyright Act. As we move well into the twenty-first century, a claim that copyright no longer “works” in the “digital age” has become commonplace – so commonplace, in fact, that it’s arguably the dominant cliché in modern copyright discussions. Like many clichés, it contains a tiny grain of truth wrapped in a huge ball of glib, unhelpful, and even harmful generalizations.

Before one can understand what the future of copyright and the creative industries could and should look like, one should first appreciate what the first 225 years of copyright has given to the United States. Copyright laid the foundation for, and continues to support, the largest, most enduring, and most influential commercial culture in human history. That commercial culture is uniquely democratic, progressive, and accessible to both creators and audiences.

Could the Copyright Act profitably be revised? In theory, perhaps, and thus there is a grain of truth in the clichés about modernizing copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act and many of its subsequent amendments are overburdened with detailed regulatory provisions contingent on outdated assumptions about technology and business. They also sometimes embody political compromises that reflect circumstances that have long since passed. However, we should pause before hastening to replace yesterday’s contingencies with those of today. And we should also pause – indefinitely – before overturning the entire enterprise on the grandiose assumption that the Internet has changed everything.

Before we can understand what the future of the creative industries could and should look like, we need to appreciate what we have achieved and how we achieved it. The American creative industries are everything the Founding generation that drafted the 1790 Copyright Act could have dreamed – and so much more. Through its press, news media, and publishing industries, the U.S. has perpetuated the spirit of the Enlightenment’s Republic of Letters, with lively, reasoned, and sustained public discussions and debates about values, science, and politics.

The U.S. has produced a creative industry that enlightens and edifies while also diverting and distracting billions of people with its cultural products. This vast commercial creative marketplace allows professional writers, artists, musicians, actors, filmmakers, game designers, and others to make a living doing something that fulfills them and their audience. The U.S. has achieved much based on the twin foundations of free expression and copyright, securing the right to express oneself freely while securing the fruits of the labors of those who craft expressions.

The past thus has much to teach the future, while inevitably yielding to change and progress. Copyright should continue to secure the many values it supports, while being flexible enough to support innovation in creativity and business models.

On this occasion of the 225th anniversary of the first U.S. Copyright Act, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) is recognizing the essential contribution of copyright and commercial culture to the United States. To that end, CPIP will be publishing a series of essays highlighting the fact that, contrary to the facile narratives about copyright that dominate modern discussions, copyright isn’t simply a law designed to incentivize the creation of more creative stuff. It has much richer purposes and benefits. Copyright:

  • Supports a professional class of creators.
  • Enables a commercial culture that contributes to human flourishing.
  • Serves as a platform for innovation in both the arts and sciences.
  • Promotes a free republic.

U.S. copyright law has achieved these lofty goals for the last 225 years, and it will continue to do so—but only if we let it and help it do so. In many important ways, U.S. culture and politics has been so shaped by the commercial culture created by copyright that it rightly can be called Copyright’s Republic.

Part I: Copyright Promotes an Independent and Professional Class of Creators and Creative Businesses

Categories
Conferences Copyright Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Injunctions Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Inventors Patent Law Patent Theory Remedies Uncategorized

IP Promotes Progress by Securing the Individual Liberty of Inventors and Creators

This is the third in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, “Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.” The Conference was held at George Mason University School of Law on October 9-10, 2014. Videos of the conference panels and keynote will be available soon.

The second panel of CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference analyzed the common moral case for copyrights and patents. The panel was moderated by Professor Chris Newman (George Mason University School of Law). Two of the panelists, Professor Mark Schultz (CPIP, and Southern Illinois University School of Law) and Professor Eric Claeys (George Mason University School of Law) explained the theoretical and normative principles underlying the moral case for intellectual property. The other two panelists, Dr. Ken Anderson (Thermaquatica) and David Lowery (musician, producer, and lecturer at the University of Georgia), then showed how those principles play out in practice.

Professor Schultz noted that the moral case for intellectual property is often overshadowed by (or outright ignored in favor of) the economic case. But in addition to being economically valuable, intellectual property serves important moral functions by enabling artists and inventors to live free and flourishing lives. Intellectual property fosters economic independence, enables the creation of a private sector, and supports political freedom. Patents and copyrights give an important set of choices to creators and inventors, enabling them not only to survive, but also to thrive. As such, intellectual property is a moral right that facilitates individual liberty. While the economic justifications for copyrights and patents remain important, it is equally important not to lose sight of their strong moral underpinnings.

Professor Claeys discussed the moral case for injunctive relief against IP infringement. Starting from a traditional property law perspective, he explained that remedies (such as injunctive relief) are essential in reinforcing and vindicating property rights. Just as with traditional property, copyrights and patents confer exclusive control to their owners to secure to them the value of their productive labors. By protecting copyright and patent owners’ discretion over the deployment of their property, injunctions protect their moral rights in the fruits of their labors. Claeys further noted that this labor-based understanding of intellectual property could inform the balance of equities discussed in eBay v. MercExchange, filing significant gaps in the Supreme Court’s reasoning and likely leading to a different conclusion regarding licensing companies’ ability to obtain injunctions.

Anderson and Lowery addressed the role of IP in their respective fields. Dr. Anderson discussed how patents were crucial to his ability to obtain investors for his green tech company. He invented a new, environmentally-friendly technology to convert “coal, biomass and other organic solids into low molecular weight products.” Being able to protect the value of his work through patent protection (he filed multiple rounds of patents all over the world) has been essential to his company’s success and his ability to commercialize his invention.

Lowery discussed how the lack of copyright enforcement in the digital era has affected the music industry, leading to an environment where internet platforms thrive, but the artists and creators who fuel the value of those platforms struggle mightily to make ends meet. In many ways, musicians are worse off now than they were in the 1950s (an era that s well-known for the exploitation of musicians). Nonetheless, he expressed hope that the third decade of the Internet could embrace legal and technological innovations that make it a better place for artists.

In sum, the panelists illustrated the fundamental moral importance of intellectual property, which applies equally to inventors’ patent rights as it does to artists’ copyrights. Intellectual property isn’t just about economic incentives. IP also promotes progress by securing the individual liberty of inventors and creators.

Categories
Commercialization Conferences Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory Economic Study High Tech Industry History of Intellectual Property Injunctions Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Inventors Law and Economics Patent Law Patent Licensing Patent Litigation Patent Theory Remedies Software Patent Uncategorized

Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators

This is the first in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, “Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.” The Conference was held at George Mason University School of Law on October 9-10, 2014. Videos of the conference panels and remarks, as well as panel summaries, will be available soon.

Introduction by Professors Adam Mossoff and Mark Schultz

Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators

The creative industries and innovation industries have much in common, but too often this is overlooked. Both industries engage in brilliant intellectual work to bring new products and services into the world, both take great risks to commercialize this work, and both depend on intellectual property – copyrights (for the creative industries) and patents (for the innovation industries). Unfortunately, most accounts of these two industries emphasize their differences and frequently portray them in conflict.

This conference will explore the common ground shared by these two dynamic industries, focusing on the similar values secured by their patents and copyrights and thus their common policy goals and commercial developments.

It should be unsurprising that these two industries share much in common. The work of inventors and artists is much the same. We see hints of this in their respective aspirations. Engineers, for example, often talk of seeking “elegant” or “beautiful” solutions to the technological problems they face. Artists also strive to innovate technically in how they create their works, as demonstrated with much panache in the recent documentary, Tim’s Vermeer. Many creators apply their prodigious talents to both art and invention.

One may think of a Steve Jobs today as exemplifying this truth, but history is replete with examples. Leonardo da Vinci also comes to mind, the quintessential Renaissance Man. In the 19th century, Samuel Morse invented the telegraph, but he was also a successful artist and in fact he developed the telegraph while working as a well-known Professor of Art at New York University.

In modern America, Walt Disney has defined much of our culture not just with his artistic creations, but also with his innovative technological creations in movies, theme parks and products. More recently, filmmakers George Lucas and James Cameron have cast large shadows in popular culture, but their contributions to filmmaking technology may prove even more enduring and pervasive.

These and many other examples are unsurprising when one considers that art and technology both result from the same source: productive intellectual labor.

As the work of artists and inventors is at heart the same, so is the moral and economic case for securing property rights to them. Artists and inventors deserve to own the fruits of their productive labors. In protecting these labors, intellectual property rights secure to them their liberty and their careers. These rights thus fuel the vast economic activity that drives the innovation economy – bringing to market the products and services that ensure full and flourishing lives for them and for the rest of us as well.

Too often, though, the creative and innovation industries are portrayed as being at odds. One popular narrative today – in both scholarly and popular accounts – is that technology disrupts the creative industries, forcing copyright owners to adapt. This is a myopic account of their relationship that ultimately creates a false picture. In truth, creativity and innovation – secured by copyrights and patents – constantly spur each other to greater heights.

The true story of creativity and innovation is more properly viewed as a virtuous circle.

Recording and broadcast technology, for instance, gave musicians and other performers their first worldwide audiences, whose demand for ever-more entertainment and information spurred further improvement and expansion of technology. The invention of the electric guitar, spurred by a series of patented improvements, enabled blues and rock ‘n’ roll, which in turn pushed further developments in music and recording technology.

The Internet certainly created much disruption, but it also has been a fountainhead of creativity. To take just one example, streaming of original, creative content enables television viewers to enjoy storytelling as never before, bringing about what some are now calling a Second Golden Age of Television.

Our technological devices, such as smartphones and iPads, would not be so well loved and so ubiquitous without the games, music, and video content they deliver to hundreds of millions of people the world over.

The common ground and shared aspirations of creators and innovators is clear, but rarely appreciated in the din of today’s policy debates.

Thus, our Annual Conference this year considers afresh the common goals, challenges and needs of the creative and innovation industries. Many distinguished speakers with extensive knowledge and experience in both fields will address how intellectual property rights represent the bedrock of this common ground. We hope that you will enjoy what promises to be enlightening discussion.

**Panel summaries coming soon**

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Law and Economics Patent Law Patent Litigation Patent Theory Statistics Uncategorized

Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Growth: Mercatus Gets it Wrong

By Mark Schultz & Adam Mossoff

A handful of increasingly noisy critics of intellectual property (IP) have emerged within free market organizations. Both the emergence and vehemence of this group has surprised most observers, since free market advocates generally support property rights. It’s true that there has long been a strain of IP skepticism among some libertarian intellectuals. However, the surprised observer would be correct to think that the latest critique is something new. In our experience, most free market advocates see the benefit and importance of protecting the property rights of all who perform productive labor – whether the results are tangible or intangible.

How do the claims of this emerging critique stand up? We have had occasion to examine the arguments of free market IP skeptics before. (For example, see here, here, here.) So far, we have largely found their claims wanting.

We have yet another occasion to examine their arguments, and once again we are underwhelmed and disappointed. We recently posted an essay at AEI’s Tech Policy Daily prompted by an odd report recently released by the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The Mercatus report attacks recent research that supposedly asserts, in the words of the authors of the Mercatus report, that “the existence of intellectual property in an industry creates the jobs in that industry.” They contend that this research “provide[s] no theoretical or empirical evidence to support” its claims of the importance of intellectual property to the U.S. economy.

Our AEI essay responds to these claims by explaining how these IP skeptics both mischaracterize the studies that they are attacking and fail to acknowledge the actual historical and economic evidence on the connections between IP, innovation, and economic prosperity. We recommend that anyone who may be confused by the assertions of any IP skeptics waving the banner of property rights and the free market read our essay at AEI, as well as our previous essays in which we have called out similarly odd statements from Mercatus about IP rights.

The Mercatus report, though, exemplifies many of the concerns we raise about these IP skeptics, and so it deserves to be considered at greater length.

For instance, something we touched on briefly in our AEI essay is the fact that the authors of this Mercatus report offer no empirical evidence of their own within their lengthy critique of several empirical studies, and at best they invoke thin theoretical support for their contentions.

This is odd if only because they are critiquing several empirical studies that develop careful, balanced and rigorous models for testing one of the biggest economic questions in innovation policy: What is the relationship between intellectual property and jobs and economic growth?

Apparently, the authors of the Mercatus report presume that the burden of proof is entirely on the proponents of IP, and that a bit of hand waving using abstract economic concepts and generalized theory is enough to defeat arguments supported by empirical data and plausible methodology.

This move raises a foundational question that frames all debates about IP rights today: On whom should the burden rest? On those who claim that IP has beneficial economic effects? Or on those who claim otherwise, such as the authors of the Mercatus report?

The burden of proof here is an important issue. Too often, recent debates about IP rights have started from an assumption that the entire burden of proof rests on those investigating or defending IP rights. Quite often, IP skeptics appear to believe that their criticism of IP rights needs little empirical or theoretical validation, beyond talismanic invocations of “monopoly” and anachronistic assertions that the Framers of the US Constitution were utilitarians.

As we detail in our AEI essay, though, the problem with arguments like those made in the Mercatus report is that they contradict history and empirics. For the evidence that supports this claim, including citations to the many studies that are ignored by the IP skeptics at Mercatus and elsewhere, check out the essay.

Despite these historical and economic facts, one may still believe that the US would enjoy even greater prosperity without IP. But IP skeptics who believe in this counterfactual world face a challenge. As a preliminary matter, they ought to acknowledge that they are the ones swimming against the tide of history and prevailing belief. More important, the burden of proof is on them – the IP skeptics – to explain why the U.S. has long prospered under an IP system they find so odious and destructive of property rights and economic progress, while countries that largely eschew IP have languished. This obligation is especially heavy for one who seeks to undermine empirical work such as the USPTO Report and other studies.

In sum, you can’t beat something with nothing. For IP skeptics to contest this evidence, they should offer more than polemical and theoretical broadsides. They ought to stop making faux originalist arguments that misstate basic legal facts about property and IP, and instead offer their own empirical evidence. The Mercatus report, however, is content to confine its empirics to critiques of others’ methodology – including claims their targets did not make.

For example, in addition to the several strawman attacks identified in our AEI essay, the Mercatus report constructs another strawman in its discussion of studies of copyright piracy done by Stephen Siwek for the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). Mercatus inaccurately and unfairly implies that Siwek’s studies on the impact of piracy in film and music assumed that every copy pirated was a sale lost – this is known as “the substitution rate problem.” In fact, Siwek’s methodology tackled that exact problem.

IPI and Siwek never seem to get credit for this, but Siwek was careful to avoid the one-to-one substitution rate estimate that Mercatus and others foist on him and then critique as empirically unsound. If one actually reads his report, it is clear that Siwek assumes that bootleg physical copies resulted in a 65.7% substitution rate, while illegal downloads resulted in a 20% substitution rate. Siwek’s methodology anticipates and renders moot the critique that Mercatus makes anyway.

After mischaracterizing these studies and their claims, the Mercatus report goes further in attacking them as supporting advocacy on behalf of IP rights. Yes, the empirical results have been used by think tanks, trade associations and others to support advocacy on behalf of IP rights. But does that advocacy make the questions asked and resulting research invalid? IP skeptics would have trumpeted results showing that IP-intensive industries had a minimal economic impact, just as Mercatus policy analysts have done with alleged empirical claims about IP in other contexts. In fact, IP skeptics at free-market institutions repeatedly invoke studies in policy advocacy that allegedly show harm from patent litigation, despite these studies suffering from far worse problems than anything alleged in their critiques of the USPTO and other studies.

Finally, we noted in our AEI essay how it was odd to hear a well-known libertarian think tank like Mercatus advocate for more government-funded programs, such as direct grants or prizes, as viable alternatives to individual property rights secured to inventors and creators. There is even more economic work being done beyond the empirical studies we cited in our AEI essay on the critical role that property rights in innovation serve in a flourishing free market, as well as work on the economic benefits of IP rights over other governmental programs like prizes.

Today, we are in the midst of a full-blown moral panic about the alleged evils of IP. It’s alarming that libertarians – the very people who should be defending all property rights – have jumped on this populist bandwagon. Imagine if free market advocates at the turn of the Twentieth Century had asserted that there was no evidence that property rights had contributed to the Industrial Revolution. Imagine them joining in common cause with the populist Progressives to suppress the enforcement of private rights and the enjoyment of economic liberty. It’s a bizarre image, but we are seeing its modern-day equivalent, as these libertarians join the chorus of voices arguing against property and private ordering in markets for innovation and creativity.

It’s also disconcerting that Mercatus appears to abandon its exceptionally high standards for scholarly work-product when it comes to IP rights. Its economic analyses and policy briefs on such subjects as telecommunications regulation, financial and healthcare markets, and the regulatory state have rightly made Mercatus a respected free-market institution. It’s unfortunate that it has lent this justly earned prestige and legitimacy to stale and derivative arguments against property and private ordering in the innovation and creative industries. It’s time to embrace the sound evidence and back off the rhetoric.