Copyright, Intellectual Property, & Innovation

Most people are at least somewhat familiar with what a copyright is; they know it is for protecting someone’s creation, their intellectual property. A copyright protects works such as written works, music, photographs, movies, architecture and even computer programs (Passing on your best ideas, 2011). A copyright will protect the intellectual property of the creator for their lifetime plus sixty years beyond the death of its longest living creator (Passing on your best ideas, 2011). There are those that believe that copyright laws may be too restrictive and may actually pose a threat to innovation if left in the current state; however, we cannot just leave the door totally open for all to use whatever they wish. If the creators fail to receive some sort of recognition or compensation, will they still create literary works, movies, and even more powerful technology?

The person who owns the copyright enjoys certain rights over their property. The copyright owner may chose to make multiple copies of his or her work, and to then sell or hand out these copies to the general public. If the item happens to be something that can be performed, like a song, or picture, or painting, then the copyright owner may perform or display the piece. Should someone attempt to steal the owner’s work, the owner then has the right to sue for copyright infringement. The owner of the property will have to prove original ownership of the work, and evidence proving violation of the copyright agreement. People who have been found guilty of this crime have paid damages usually between 750,000 and 300,000 dollars. Sometimes the issue of copyright infringement arises over intellectual property, such as scientific theories or articles. Plagiarism is a form of copyright infringement in which one person tries to take credit for some one else’s work. Plagiarism can occur when some uses someone else’s work without properly citing the source of the information (Citizen Media Law, 2011).

Debates over copyrights and intellectual property rights have increased with the ever-spreading use of computers and the internet. In the late 1990s, copyright infringement and piracy received more attention due to companies such as Napster, which allowed people online to access and download songs from their favorite singers for free. While it was acknowledged that the chances of piracy have increased because of the internet, the invention of companies such as Napster adds significant problems. Certain groups, such as Metallica, have become known for taking a stance against piracy because neither they nor the record labels profit from the sharing of songs. The way companies such as Napster would work were by converting the songs to MP3 files, which could be easily shared and downloaded. Even after Napster was sued, songs, movies, and other information became illegally taken via the internet (Borland, 2000). The effect on the music industry was profound, despite the popular sentiment that downloading these songs was not harmful. “Record sales in the world's top 10 markets declined 6.8% in 2002, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Research estimates that piracy accounts for 40% of the global decline. First-quarter album sales (144.7 million units) are down 10% from 2002 (160.7 million), according to Nielsen SoundScan” (Gundersen, 2003, ¶3). Dr. Richard Waterman of the Wharton School, who testified that a random sample of 1,800 files, downloaded from P2P site Livewire, turned up copyright infringement in 93% of them, including 43.6% copyrighted files owed by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Based on the results, Dr. Waterman concluded that "98.8 per cent of the files requested for download through Livewire are copyright protected or highly likely copyright protected, and thus not authorized for free distribution," (Music biz wins Livewire copyright case, 2010). Although Livewire was hit due to music downloads, you could download images, software, and music from the site.

In a 2008 case, a Madrid court referred questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the balance between copyrights and fundamental rights, for example Privacy (Szuskin, de Ruyter, Doucleff, ¶6 2009). Promusicae, a non-profit organization, contested the refusal by a Spanish ISP, Telefónica, to simply give up information of some of its users so that Promusicae could identify the these people who had been accused of unlawfully sharing copyrighted works on Kazaa, a peer-to-peer software (Szuskin, de Ruyter, Doucleff, ¶6 2009). .

Walter G. Park is an associate professor of economics at American University in Washington, DC and states “Intellectual property rights are among the most important factors affecting technological progress and economic development,” (Park, 2010). He believes that copyrights can have both ups and downs when it comes to creativity. He debates that policies should focus less on how strict the copyright protection is, and more on better designs of this protection system. According to Park’s report, copyrights give their holders exclusive rights over their works, without such rights the creator won’t have much incentive to create new works, whether it be writing, art, or technological innovations (Park, 2010). “Copyright works contribute to the pool of human knowledge and to technological research and human capital development; that is, to the development of literacy in artistic and scientific works, skills in symbolic language and computer programming,” (Park, 2010). The scientific and engineering community depends on its research on copyrighted works such as software, books, journals, educational films and databases, all of which are affected by copyright regulations. What would happen if the access to these materials was suddenly cut off?

Despite previous financial losses to record companies Parks believes that piracy may actually have a beneficial affect on industry, possibly increasing legitimate sales by possibly paying for legitimate materials to get more (Park, 2010). That would be like downloading one song for free, enjoying it, and then buying the entire album form iTunes.

“Economic development rests on ongoing creativity, so that copyright protection must not be too strong as to shelter copyright owners from competition and the need to stay innovative” (Park 2010). If you walk into any store and head to where they sell light bulbs, you can find many different brands for varying prices. The same can be said if you go to the electronics area and look at the computers. If copyright laws and patents were so strong that they limited competition, then there would be only one company making computers, one company making software, and what would that due for prices without a pricing war between competitors. “During the duration of copyright protection, the work will be more expensive and less accessible than under a system of no copyright protection,” (Park 2010). Not everyone feels that piracy is something that is beneficial.

Senator Coons states that copyright infringement, including pirating of goods such as movies, music, and other knockoffs, cost the economy of our country billions in lost taxes for federal, state and local governments (Protecting American intellectual property online, 2011). "Preventing the theft of American intellectual property is an important part of our strategy for making our nation more competitive in the global economy," Senator Coons said. "As a nation we are hemorrhaging money and jobs because of rogue websites whose sole purpose is to distribute and sell pirated content and counterfeit goods. It's a serious issue that these two bills will help address."

Protecting American intellectual property online is a critical part of fostering economic recovery. Senator Coons cosponsors two bipartisan bills introduced to combat online piracy (Protecting American intellectual property online, 2011). Mr. Coons is cosponsoring the PROTECT IP Act and an Online Streaming Bill that intends to make it easier to bring privateers to justice(Protecting American intellectual property online, 2011).

The US government has taken efforts to educate people about piracy starting with children. There are still people in the US that do not understand that downloading information is no different than stealing a CD or movie at the store. At Kid’s Page, which can be found on the site for the US Patent and Trademark Office, children are taught about what piracy and copywriting is. At the site, the children can look up terms in the glossary and are told that finding something on the internet does not mean that it is okay to download it. The children are encouraged to help stop piracy so that jobs for other people are secured and that others are free to be creative (US Patent and Trademark Office). Though there are those who feel that piracy will not necessarily hinder creativity, but aide it.

James Boyle, a professor at Duke Law School has said, “Like any monopoly, its [copyright’s] tendency is to raise prices and diminish availability. We should have a high burden of proof for whether it's necessary,” (The Washington Post, 2010). This particular discussion was raised after Allan Schwartz, founder and lead designer of the label ABS, created an imitation of a Vera Wang dress (The Washington Post, 2010). Vera Wang is well known in the fashion industry, you will often hear her name by stars on the red carpet.

Jennifer Jenkins, an intellectual property expert at Duke, believes copying has benefits," she says.

“First, knockoffs make designs trendy, and that increases the value of the original, and thus the incentives for designers to innovate,” (The Washington Post, 2010). Wang and Schwartz are obviously marketing to different markets. Schwartz is targeting the average woman who might want to look like that star she saw on the red carpet at the latest premier where Wang is targeting the extremely wealthy.

While some believe that Schwartz’s intentions are harmless and will push for Wang to innovate; others believe it is stealing Wang’s creation. August 5, 2010, Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-N. Y.) introduced S.3728: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act which is designed to stop actions like what Schwartz is doing (The Washington Post, 2010). There are 10 cosponsors and the idea is to extend copyright laws to the fashion industry where there currently is no protection for intellectual property such as Vera Wang’s designs (The Washington Post, 2010).

Fordham University's Susan Scafidi, who helped craft the legislation, says that it's actually small designers, who don’t have the big name recognition of a Vera Wang, which will suffer most if Senator Charles E. Schumer’s legislation goes through (The Washington Post, 2010). Although they are fighting over the rights of fashion designers, the principles of the argument apply to other aspects as well. If someone came out with an exact copy of Windows 7 operating systems, we can be sure that Microsoft would have their lawyers all over it same if an author came out with a knock-off of Stephen King’s “Christine.” However, could a knock off of Microsoft Word, such as Open Office push Microsoft to be more innovative with its product? If you do a search for “Microsoft Word” on Google, you will find a link that will lead you to where you can download Open Office for free.

When you look at the music industry, hip hop artists have used samples of other music as palette to create new works, rather than a tool of theft (Evans 2011). Without the creator’s permission to do so, hefty lawsuits can ensue. Vanilla Ice sampled Queen’s song, “Under Pressure,” on "Ice Ice Baby," which was a huge hit in 1990. Although all of the details are unknown, it seems that the sampling was never given permission and a settlement was reached after the song had already become a huge hit big (Songfacts.com 2011). On the flipside, Guns n’ Roses remade Aerosmith’s 1973 release, “Mama Kin” on their 1986 album “Gn’R Lies.” (Interscope Records, 2011). Since permission was granted, Aerosmith had even performed the song with Guns N’ Roses on a few occasions, including a Pay-Per-View concert in the mid 90’s. However, Guns N’ Roses never released the song for On-air play, so it did not reach the heights of Vanilla Ice’s song.

In 1984, Ronald Regan got on Bruce Springsteen’s bad side when he used “Born in the USA” as his anthem for his re-election campaign (Jackson, 2011). The “Boss” said that Reagan was ignoring the true meaning behind the song as well as using it without consent, which is pretty much the same idea behind when Sen. John McCain's was sued by Jackson Browne for using his song “Running on Empty” in a campaign video that was created by the Ohio Republican Party (Jackson, 2011). Even former Florida Governor, Charlie Crist is embroiled in a lawsuit from former Talking Heads front man, David Byrne, after a campaign video showed up on YouTube with the Talking Heads tune “Road to Nowhere,” (Jackson, 2011). "What's often lost in these discussions is that the artist has a First Amendment right not to associate themselves with a politician with whom they disagree," says Jacqueline Charlesworth, a copyright attorney with Pryor Cashman in New York City (Jackson, 2011).

"Artists get paid very well for the use of popular songs in commercials ... and will be negatively impacted if anyone can take a song and slap it on an ad," (Jackson, 2011). Charlesworth handled the lawsuit of the former Eagle, Don Henley when he sued Charles DeVore who posted copies of Henley’s songs with rewritten lyrics to spoof Barack Obama (Jackson, 2011).

Copyright laws help to ensure that others cannot make a profit off of your creation without permission, that is important, but could the copyright laws hinder the innovation of new ideas? Did Edison create the energy saving light bulb, or was that a more recent innovation? You cannot argue that the creator deserves credit for their work, but if someone could improve upon that idea, software program, or invention, wouldn’t it be worth it? “Unfortunately, copyright fails to acknowledge the historical role, informal norms and value of borrowing, cumulative creation and citation in music,” (Evans 2011). If you put together a video of your family’s reunion and add in a song from Jewel for entertainment purposes, you are using the song without permission, but are you going to go to prison for it? As we move into the future, the copyright laws need to be looked at as technology makes it easy to share anything over the internet.

Professor Ian Hargreaves, recommended making copying for private purposes legal; including allowing people to put these copies on several devices, a practice known as format shifting, "It is difficult for anyone to understand why it is legal to lend a friend a book, but not a digital music file," he concluded (Call for copyright reform 2011). Professor Hargreaves believes that the UK’s copyright laws are outdated and falling behind. He believes that copying for private usage should be legal, and that people should have access to orphan works; ones where the copyright owner cannot be traced.

Fair usage, which allows people a limited use of copyright material without permission, as happens in the US, is not among the report's recommendations (Call for copyright reform 2011). Mike O'Connor, Consumer Focus chief executive, said: "Our copyright regime is out of date and out of touch. A format-shifting exception in UK copyright laws would be fantastic news for consumers,” (Call for copyright reform 2011).

A difficulty for countries trying to develop economically is that, if standards of copyright protection are too strong, It could stop economic development, in that the costs of protection outweigh the benefits; which the system harms those who may create the next big creation or software more than benefits those who already hold protection to their intellectual property (Park, 2010). “Non-commercial sectors such as education make important but indirect contributions to national productivity by affecting human capital development, which in turn affects innovation and production,” (Park 2010). The education sector can only do so much when it comes to affecting productivity and innovation. We have got to make sure that the laws of protection do not hinder the future to the point where we end up stuck with what we have, with nothing new to look forward to. Without innovation, would we have a Plasma TV to watch the Super bowl on, or would we still have the black and white televisions where turning the knob to change the channel could be heard by the neighbors?

Governments, Artists, musicians, programmers, analysts, and filmmakers are all feeling the pinch of how difficult it is to protect intellectual property rights for the creative industries. “The most significant challenge is how legal and policy frameworks can keep up with the fast-paced and constantly evolving digital world” (Bissell, ¶1, 2009).

As quickly as technology changes, in come new innovations that can make life easier for industries such as the creative world, yet laws could also put up too many barriers for anyone to bother. Technology has made it so simple to download, yet you could easily put yourself into a situation where you could go to prison, and using the excuse that you did not know will not save you. “The Internet, and especially the ongoing development of the digital social web, makes the mismatch between what is possible and what is allowed obvious,” (Bissell. ¶2. 2009).

It is certainly important to make sure that the owners of a copyright receive their due credit. If the creators fail to receive some sort of recognition or compensation, will they still create literary works, movies, and even more powerful technology? There are those that believe that copyright laws may be too restrictive and may actually pose a threat to innovation if left in the current state; however, we cannot just leave the door totally open for all to use whatever they wish. As technology advances and it becomes easier and easier to download that which is created by others, we really need to educate the public more about the copyright laws as well as amend them as well. Though as the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse, there are a number of people illegally downloading songs and movies who are not aware that they are committing a crime. Creativity is a major part of what got us to this point in history, although we do need to protect the rights of the creators, we must not have laws that are so strict that improvements cannot be made. Without creative intelligence, our laptops would not continue to get more powerful, our appliances would not be receiving tech that improves energy usage, nor would we have so many of the luxuries that we take for granted so often. In the future our lawmakers will have to consider that delicate balance between a person’s rights to their ideas and innovation when making new policies.

References

Anonymous, . Call for copyright reform. (2011, May). Computer Act!ve,(346), 7. Retrieved June 28, 2011, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 2382682681).

Anonymous, (2011, August 22). Under Pressure by Queen. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from http://www.songfacts.com

Anonymous, Interscope Records, (2011) GN’R Lies. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from http://www.interscope.com

Bissell, A.. (2009). SOLUTIONS FOR ADAPTING TO COPYRIGHT IN THE TECHNOLOGY AGE. International Trade Forum,(3), 38-39. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1964460331)

Borland, J. (2000). Napster to Face Trial on Music Piracy Claims. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240222.html Economic, & Domestic Policy. (2010, August 22). In copycats vs. copyright, the knock-off wins. The Washington Post,p. G.1. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 2116418151).

Citizen Media Law Project (2011). Copyright Infringement. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/copyright-infringement

Evans, T.. (1 September). Sampling, Looping, and Mashing ... Oh My! How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More than the Surface of Copyright Law. SSRN Working Paper Series,***[insert pages]***. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2152785881).

Gundersen, E. (2003). Piracy Has its Hooks In. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-05-05-piracy-cover_x.htm#

Jackson, L.. (2011). FACING THE MUSIC. ABA Journal, 97(3), 10. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2293985571).

Passing on your BEST IDEAS. (2011, May 16). Mail Today Retrieved July 10, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 2347787411

Protecting American intellectual property online is a critical part of fostering economic recovery through innovation :Senator Coons cosponsors two bipartisan bills introduced Thursday to combat online piracy. (2011, May). Congressional Documents and Publications. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2348268241)

Park, W.. (2010). THE COPYRIGHT DILEMMA: COPYRIGHT SYSTEMS, INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 53-XIII. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2222990051).

Music biz wins LimeWire copyright case. (2010, May 14). Star - Phoenix,C.4. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Canadian Newsstand Complete. (Document ID: 2034550361).

United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Kids Page: Stop Piracy. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/kids/kidantipiracy.htm

Szuskin, L., de Ruyter, S., & Doucleff, J.. (2009). Beyond Counterfeiting: The Expanding Battle Against Online Piracy. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 21(11), 1-0_1. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1885676091).