Larry Lessig tells us that the election of Democrats, which was supposed to mean redefining copyright law, is not likely to mean much change. The House committee in charge is in the hands of a Democrat, Howard L. Berman, who "is a favorite boogeyman of advocates for copyright reform, many of whom say he is in the pocket of his Hollywood constituents" according to the NYTimes (link here). Lessig says a good bit more on his blog (link here). Look for his post dated Dec 24. Among other things, he wants to "to fit the legitimate objectives of copyright to assure that artists have the incentives they need to create great new work into the contours of digital technology."

I suspect most of us on this blog would like to see copyrights disappear but it isn't going to happen anytime soon. For now, we need to keep pointing out the deficiencies and push for incremental changes. Write your members of Congress, pointing out the bad results.

While pushing for incremental reform might work for reformers such as Lessig and Vaidhyanathan, historically most radical reforms--for example, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, the ending of the military draft--were fundamental uprootings of entrenched injustices that came as the result of a train of events underscored by deep ideological underpinnings, which had at their root at least some abolitionist intent. Most incremental reforms, on the other hand, actually entrench the power of the state in a long step-by-step process that enriches a minority or rent seekers at the expense of the masses. The existing copyright regime fits this model. The income tax, the draft, Prohibition, drug laws, and the nannystate regulations we see in New York, Chicago, and other cities are other examples. It's worth pointing out that copyright reformers are not against copyright per se. Lessig and Vaidhyanathan get all lathered up about the problems copyright pose to creators and people who just want to download music files and share them with their friends. But then, predictably and reliably, they bend over backwards to confer their blessings on copyright. Lessig, after all, would have to switch to teaching estate planning or corporate law, absent copyright.

William Lloyd Garrison said that incrementalism in theory is injustice in perpetuity. Thanks to his (and others') radicalism, slavery was abolished. That's why we need to be radicals against intellectual monopoly. If we are not going to assume the mantle of Garrison and his fellow abolitionists, who will? So let Lessig do his reformist thing. I will be applauding with one hand, or maybe one pinkie. We on the other hand should be fighting tooth and nail against the copyright monster, to dig it out root and branch. We are the heirs of the abolitionists. Let's not forget that. Against Intellectual Monopoly will be the salvo heard round the world. It is up to us to join the battle.

Bill, that all sounds jolly good.

1) Monopolies are unfair 2) Monopolies that extend beyond an incumbent cartel to suspend the liberty of the public are unethical 3) Monopolies that are ignored by the majority of the population are ineffective and grant the privilege of prosecution rather than actual exclusivity

So, there's not really much of a case left in support of something that's unfair, unethical and ineffective.

The idea that you can restore the legitimacy of copyright by encouraging far greater uptake by self-publishers (thanks to Creative Commons), isn't exactly helping anyone except those who wish to demonstrate how shackles can be turned into attractive bracelets and anklets with a little spit and polish, and the chains used to secure ones motorcycle.

The final knockout blow to copyright is demonstrating an alternative revenue model (other than taxation) that let's audience and artist exchange art for money, money for art.

And that's what I'm working on.

Crosbie,

The alternative revenue model has two parts, in my view:

(1) showing that creators and inventors can in fact earn back their cost of capital without resort to intellectual monopoly (and maybe with some free market vig thrown in), thanks to being the first mover, selling complementary services, and exploiting elastic demand, as Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine do in their paper, "Perfectly Competitive Innovation."

(2) letting people actually do this by abolishing the state's IP junta. Anyone who can't make it this way can always get a job at McDonalds or Starbucks--or maybe become a Dismal Scientist.

1) Creators and inventors - scratch that - derivers and reinventors can resort to the natural monopoly of the human right to privacy, i.e. that if you are the sole supplier of a work of art, then you can command whatever price the market (in the form of your audience) will bear to release your work from privacy into the public domain.

2) The direct sale of an artwork from artist to audience is necessarily a one-shot transaction in a free market. The audience proffers their money. The artist releases their art. The artist collects the money. The audience gets their art. Audience and artist part. The IP junta chase the artist or their audience in vain.

I look forward to the crime of "Facilitating the procurement and publication of a copyright infringing work of art with the intent to obtain goodwill - five years imprisonment".

Unfortunately, the biggest threat to a free market in art is not the continuation of copyright, but art funded by taxation (aka VCL).