Preserving the balance between intellectual property and the public domain is not an attack on intellectual property; rather, it’s about preserving a living ecosystem between intellectual property and the public domain...
We also need a richer understanding of the notions of the “public domain” as opposed to the “commons"...
Now the point is, that’s not the public domain. It focuses on many of the things that the library community cares about—access issues, sometimes price issues, sequential innovation issues—but it is built on the back of intellectual property rights.
In fact, there are currently developments in the scientific community, which some you may be aware of, where there is going to be a hard tactical choice along this front. For example, we’re right at the beginning of “synthetic biology”—creating entirely new molecules, entirely new biological entities, using, effectively, DNA as a programming code the way someone might use C++. Most of the sequences are probably not copyrightable. But some of the scientists who passionately want this stuff to be openly available wish that they were. Why? Because they want to attach a General Public License-like condition that says, if you want to use my building block, my enabling technology, then you have to add your innovation to the commons. They’re saying, this must be “property,” so it can be free...
as you know, intellectual property rights have expanded dramatically in recent years...
What arguments have been used to justify this expansion? One is what I call the “Internet threat” argument, which assumes that, as copying becomes cheaper, intellectual property protection must increase...
Now, this is not a dumb argument, but it is wrong. It’s not dumb in that there is a real problem. The Internet does lower the cost of copying, so it will magnify the amount of illicit copying. But it will also magnify the amount of licit copying. And it expands the size of the market, makes it easier for you to distribute things, lowers your advertising costs. On balance, are intellectual property holders betteror worse off? Well, even economists don’t think that you can decide that in the abstract. They say you actually need evidence, right?
Here’s another remarkable thing about intellectual property policy over the last 10 or 15 years: it is almost evidence-free. People criticize the FDA about Vioxx. But if we were doing FDA drug approvals the way we approved intellectual property expansions, this is how the process would go. The drug company would say, “This is my friend. He took the pill and he feels better.” Or sometimes even, “This is my friend, he needs to take a pill and he thinks it will make him better.” And then they would offer a model about as complicated as a picture of the person with a mouth and the pill in their stomach and say, “See?” That’s about as data-intensive as things have been...
My points are: lowering copying costs brings benefits, as well as costs. And we need evidence before we make policy.
If you have any interest in the technology and law debate in the intellectual property arena, read the whole transcript. It's worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment