IP: Tom Bell Cato Institute on WIPO copyright treaty

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:49:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom W. Bell" <tbell@cato.org>
To: declan@well.com
Subject: FC: Sen. Leahy applauds passage of WIPO copyright treaty


Declan, I thought, given that you ran Leahy's boilerplate, you might want to
forward this to your readers.  I'm sending it to Cyberia, too.


* * *


Introductory Comments


"Cracking the Copyright Lock: A Debate about Implementing the WIPO treaty."


May 14, 1998
Washington, DC




Good afternoon!  I'm Tom W. Bell, director of telecommunications and
technology studies at the Cato Institute.  Allow me to welcome you to a Cato
Institute policy forum, "Cracking the Copyright Lock: A Debate about
Implementing the WIPO treaty."


We're pleased to be able to bring today's debate to the Hill, and thank
Representative Tom Campbell's office for sponsoring our visit.


Recent legislative proposals to implement the World Intellectual Property
Organization--the "WIPO"--copyright treaty have included bans not just on
copyright infringement, but on technological tools that might assist
copyright infringement.  


These proposals have generated a storm of public debate.  Fortunately, we
have a strong and balanced panel of experts to help us assess such
legislation.  We will hear, in order:


Professor Jessica Litman, of the Washington College of Law at American
University, arguing against the prohibition of copyright protection
circumvention technology;


Emery Simon, of the Business Software Alliance, arguing pro;


Seth Greenstein, of the Home Recording Rights Coalition, arguing con; and


Steve Metalitz, of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, arguing
pro.


Before I introduce our first panelist, however, allow me to answer a
question that many people have asked upon hearing about this policy forum:
"What do libertarians think about banning copyright protection circumvention
technology?"


Libertarians have widely varying views about the proper scope (if any) of
intellectual property rights.  Those of you interested in one approach to
the problem might enjoy my paper, "Fair Use vs. Fared Use: The Impact of
Automated Rights Management on Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine," a few copies
of which I have on hand for hard-core copyright geeks.


I do not want to delve into the libertarians' internecine debate over
intellectual property.  Allow me to observe, however, why anyone who
respects property rights must regard with great skepticism legislation that
would outlaw entire technologies just to add to the many protections already
enjoyed by copyright owners.


We enjoy a natural right to our persons and tangible property, and have
instituted governments to protect those rights.  In contrast, nobody has a
natural right to intangible, intellectual property such as copyright.


As Thomas Jefferson said, "If nature has made one thing less susceptible
than all other of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power
called an idea . . . ."  Ideas, he concluded, "cannot, in nature, be a
subject of property."


Statutory protections of intellectual property do not protect natural
rights; they encroach on them.  Patent laws limit how we employ our machine
shops.  Copyright laws prevent us from peaceably using our printing presses
and computers.


Given that they violate our natural rights to tangible property, can we
justify intellectual property laws?  Perhaps, but 


     only if they help to prevent an otherwise catastrophic market failure,
          and
     only if their benefits clearly outweigh their harms.


By that measure, proposals to ban copyright protection circumvention
technologies look suspect.  Far from suffering a market failure, the
copyright industry is booming.


The IIPA, represented here today by Steve Metalitz, recently issued a report
showing that in the last twenty years U.S. companies that create copyrighted
products grew at an annual rate of 4.6%--three times as fast as the economy
as a whole!  In 1996, these companies achieved foreign sales and exports of
over $60 billion, surpassing for the first time every other export sector!
Clearly, the copyright industry does not suffer from market failure.


Furthermore, legislation that bans whole classes of devices, that
criminalizes entire areas of technological innovation, will impose certain
and heavy harms in exchange for speculative benefits.


Proper respect for our natural rights to person and property calls for less
intrusive legislation--or, at least, a more convincing justification than we
have heard to-date.


Maybe today's debate will offer new and better proof of the wisdom of
prohibiting technologies that circumvent copyright protection.  Or maybe
not.  At any rate, though, we have a lively and informative discussion
ahead, so let's get started.


* * *


Tom W. Bell
-----------
tbell@cato.org
http://members.aol.com/tomwbell/Homepage.html
Director, Telecommunications and Technology Studies, Cato Institute