The Economist: Rules on Copyright Need to Return to Their Roots

This week’s The Economist weighs in on a topic I’ve been writing about recently (here and here): copyright and its effects on creativity. Whereas I argue that current copyright laws (at least in the US) do not hamper or negate creativity, The Economist thinks that they in fact do. Furthermore, The Economist thinks that copyright is, as William Patry believes, a government grant and not, as I believe, a property right.

Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. From 1710 onwards, it has involved a deal in which the creator or publisher gives up any natural and perpetual claim in order to have the state protect an artificial and limited one.

Speaking against current copyright terms (see this great chart for current UK copyright terms), The Economist continues:

The notion that lengthening copyright increases creativity is questionable[.]…At the moment, the terms of trade favour publishers too much. A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable. If there is a case for longer terms, they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not locked up automatically. The value society places on creativity means that fair use needs to be expanded and inadvertent infringement should be minimally penalised. None of this should get in the way of the enforcement of copyright, which remains a vital tool in the encouragement of learning. But tools are not ends in themselves.

Not sure that fair use should be expanded. However, they may have a point as to the current copyright terms, and I do like their argument for longer terms on a renewable basis. This seems to imply that the “privilege” of elongated copyright protection would come to the copyright holder conditioned on a duty of care (A type of adverse possession if you will). Click here to access The Economist’s article