Bailouts on the Cheap?
Via Legal Blog Watch, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue that the cheapest (read: free) way to revive the economy would be to abolish copyrights and allow patents only where the applicant can show that (1) his invention has social value, (2) a patent is not likely to block even more valuable innovations and (3) the innovation would not be cost effective without a patent. I’m not sure this would work for patents and copyrights already out there, as revoking an existing patent or copyright without just compensation strikes me as a pretty clear violation of the takings clause, and revoking one with just compensation would be insane. But for future patents and copyrights, why not?
Comments from anyone who isn’t Justin Levine are welcome. Comments from Justin Levine are, too, of course, just as soon as he gets over his “my posts are too good to be tarnished by comments” mentality. Geese, ganders, etc.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
1) How would it revive the economy?
2) How would it not completely discourage invention?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
(1) Most equipment that uses patented technology would be cheaper to produce if you didn’t have to pay licensing fees. Books and movies would become dramatically cheaper overnight (think: Hollywood blockbusters would cost $1-2 apiece on DVDs). Both of those things would mean more purchasing power for the average American overnight. The problem is the long-term cost . . .
(2) People would go to great lengths to keep their inventions secret. So they would keep inventing, but they would try to reap the benefits of the invention without sharing the tech with us. There would still be incentives to invent, but there would be no incentive to share. In the long term, progress would be slowed.
Likewise, people wouldn’t share their stories with us. Bands and actors and other artists would make money via performances rather than selling CDs/videos/books.
I get the feeling that Boldrin and Levine have wanted to cut down on intellectual property for the past 20 years, and now this is their excuse to do what they wanted to do all along. They are committing the worst sin an intellectual possibly can: they are being boring.
P.S.: why not copy their entire article and put it in the body of your blog post?
March 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I agree that abolishing copyrights outright is going overboard. I’d rather see a 20 year limit like the one we have on patents. If you can’t recoup your earnings in 20 years, maybe the work wasn’t so friggin’ valuable after all. As to patents, I’m not really sure how much would change, as not just anything can be patented now. That said, I’d be inclined to grant a patent if #1 and #2 are both met, or if #1 and #3 are. If the invention would not be cost effective without a patent, and the more valuable inventions it may block wouldn’t be, either, then we’re better off in the long run by issuing the first patent now, and the more valuable one 20 years (or maybe 10?) from now, rather than having neither invention see the light of day because neither was cost effective to create in the first place.
I like Daryl’s idea of reproducing the article. Unfortunately, it’s a book, which is a bit much to reproduce, and would likely violate copyrights of the publisher, whose views on copyright are probably a tad different from those of the authors.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:03 am
The only result of this would be that politicians would create tax breaks or other entitlements for their friends, much like the tax breaks high tax states give favored industries. It would essentially be selective copyright. And it would be be as corrupt as any other program that offered the chance to raise a lot of campaign funds.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I am a freelance writer, and depend upon copyright for my living. That said, the current copyright law is strangling. Anything produced after 1922 is potentially in copyright and can remain in copyright forever. That really restricts my ability to use material.
I would be in favor of shortening copyright to 20 years for a corporation or an individual with possibly one 20-year extension of copyright for an individual.
Corporations are eternal. They get their money out of a copyright after two decades. After that, let it go into the public domain. Copyright is supposed to encourage production, not provide a corporation with an eternal monopoly.