The perils of copyright regulation
The most robust framework for understanding the evolution and consequences of copyright statutes in the United States is the dynamics of interventionism. I apply the framework of Kirzner’s (1985) perils of regulation to the general revision of copyright law in 1976, and explore its effects on entrepreneurship and discovery processes. Critics of copyright commonly recognize the distortions of rent-seeking, but I emphasize the utility of interventionism to explain the “unsimulated” and the “stifled” discovery processes set in motion by copyright interventions, which use legal processes to allocate resources, and deter future discovery by raising transaction costs.
KeywordsCopyright Regulation Intellectual Property Market Process Interventionism
JEL ClassificationB25 N42 K39
I am very grateful to Benjamin Powell for his patient suggestions, and would also like to thank Christopher Coyne, Peter Boettke, Vlad Tarko, Santiago Gangotena, Lotta Moberg, Mark Lutter, two anonymous reviewers, and participants of the 2013 Southern Economics Association Annual Conference in Tampa, FL for helpful comments. I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Dunn Foundation and Earhart Foundation. All remaining errors and opinions are my own.
- Arrow, K. (1962). “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In UMI (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Universities-National Bureau.Google Scholar
- Bell, T. W. (2014). Intellectual privilege: Copyright, common law, and the common good. Arlington: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Google Scholar
- Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bracha, O. (2008). “Commentary on the U.S. copyright Act 1831.” In L. Bentley & M. Kretschmer (Eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900). (www.copyrighthistory.org)
- Bradley, R. L. (2005). “Interventionist Dynamics in the U.S. Energy Industry.” In P. Kurrild-Klitgaard (Ed.), Advances in Austrian Economics Volume 8: The Dynamics of Intervention: Regulation and Distribution in the Mixed Economy (p. 21–58). Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Brito, J. (Ed.). (2012). Copyright unbalanced: From incentive to excess. Arlington: Mercatus Center.Google Scholar
- Buchanan, J. M. (1982). Order defined in the process of its emergence. Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought, 5(4).Google Scholar
- Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2009). “Poll: Young say Filesharing Ok.” (February 11, 2009). www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml.
- Delgado, R. (2004). “Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing.” Stanford Report. (March 17, 2004)Google Scholar
- Dourado, E., &Tabarrok, A. (2014). “Public choice and Bloomington School perspectives on intellectual property,” public choice, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Envisional (2011). Technical report: An estimate of infringing use of the internet (Tech. Rep.). informationtechnology & innovation foundation. (January 2011).Google Scholar
- Gain, B. (2011). “Special report: Music Industry’s Lavish Lobby Campaign for Digital Rights.”www.ip-watch.org/2011/01/06/special-report-music-industrys-lavish-lobby-campaign-for-digital-rights.
- Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
- Heller, M. A. (2008). The gridlock economy: How too much ownership wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives. USA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Ikeda, S. (2005). “The Dynamics of Interventionism.” In P. Kurrild-Klitgaard (Ed.), Advances in Austrian Economics Volume 8: The Dynamics of Intervention: Regulation and Distribution in the Mixed Economy (p. 21–58). Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Johnson, E. E. (2012). Intellectual property and the incentive fallacy. Florida State University Law Review, 39, 623–679.Google Scholar
- Kastenmeier, R. (1976). “Copyright Law Revision: House Report No. 94–1476.” (September 3, 1976).Google Scholar
- Kinsella, N. S. (2008). Against intellectual property. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
- Kirzner, I. M. (1985). Discovery and the capitalist process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture. USA: Penguin Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lessig, L. (2006). Code version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Lindenbaum, J. (1999). “Music Sampling and Copyright.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Litman, J. (1987). Copyright, compromise, and legislative history. Cornell Law Review, 72, 857–904.Google Scholar
- Litman, J. (2006). Digital copyright. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Lohmann, F. V. (2010, February). “Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years Under the DMCA.” (Tech. Rep.). Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/files/eff-unintended-consequences −12-years 0.pdf
- McLeod, K. (2005). Freedom of expression(r): Overzealous copyright bozos and other enemies of creativity. USA: Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Nordhaus, W. (1969). Invention, growth and welfare: A theoretical treatment of technological change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Patry, W. F. (1996). Copyright and the legislative process: a personal perspective. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 14, 139–152.Google Scholar
- Patterson, L. R. (1993). Copyright and the ‘exclusive right’ of authors. Journal of Intellectual Property, 1(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
- Rudd, B. W. (1969). Notable Dates in American Copyright 1783–1969. Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/history/dates.pdf.
- Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (5th ed.).: E. Cannan, ed. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
- Tabarrok, A. (2011). Launching the Innovation Renaissance. TED Books.Google Scholar
- Time Magazine (1976). “The Law: Righting copyright.” Time Magazine. (November 1, 1976).Google Scholar
- U.S. Copyright Office (1973). Copyright Enactments: Laws passed in the United States since 1783 relating to copyright (Tech. Rep.). (Bulletin No. 3).Google Scholar
- U.S. Copyright Office (1998). The Digital Millennium Act of 1998 - U.S. Copyright Office Summary. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf.
- United States Congress. (1790). Copyright Act of 1790. (1 Statutes At Large, 124).Google Scholar
- Valenti, J. (1982). Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794, H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Sub-committee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. (Testimony of Jack Valenti).Google Scholar
- Warren, S. E. (2009). “Controlling the costs of intellectual property litigation.” Metropolitan Corporate Counsel. December 2009. http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/pdf/2009/December/26.pdf.