Under U.S. copyright law, authors have the exclusive right to their writings dur
ID: 1204572 • Letter: U
Question
Under U.S. copyright law, authors have the exclusive right to their writings during their lifetimes – unless they sell this right, as most authors do to their publishers – and their heirs retain this exclusive right for 70 years after their death. The historian Thomas Macaulay once described the copyright law as a “tax on readers to give a bounty to authors.” In what sense does the existence of the copyright law impose a tax on the readers? What “bounty” do copyright laws give authors? Discuss whether the government would be doing readers a favor by abolishing copyright law.
Explanation / Answer
One of the main issues we have with the way copyright law currently is developed is how much of it is faith-based -- with supporters insisting that more stringent copyright law is obviously "better," without presenting any evidence to support that. The history of copyright law is full of examples of this sort of argumentation in favor of stronger copyrights. Thomas Macauley argued against such things in the UK House of Commons 160 years ago.
But, that, of course leads to the issue of just what is the benefit that copyright gives. If you talk to many of the copyright system supporters, they claim the benefit (or even the entire purpose) of copyright, is to give remuneration to creators. That, of course, ignores the fundamental history of copyright law, but even if we assume this is true, then copyright does not seem to fulfill that purpose. After all, very few content creators get remuneration for their creations, and among those who do, fewer still get enough remuneration to make a living.
In explaining how copyright law might be rethought, Cory Doctorow does a nice job pointing out the extremes which disprove the common claims of copyright. He explains, if copyright is about helping content creators make a living, then the "best" solution would be to simply award content creators a living wage.This however, is an extreme suggestion.Rather we should judge the "benefit" of copyright is the way economists judge such things: you look at the aggregate marginal benefit across all stake holders. That is, what is the marginal benefit to everyone in society from a specific alteration to copyright. Will it increase output but decrease consumption? Hence, we should be looking at not just if it makes artists better off, but by how much, and whether or not it makes others better off and by how much. This may not be easy to measure, but it is how to best think about the impact of changes in copyright law. Look at both the increases and decreases in "benefits" to everyone and see which maximizes the overall societal benefit
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.