Today the News and Observer ran an AP story about a Fayetteville woman who is being sued by the recording industry. Why? Barbara Johnson allowed her grandson to illegally download and share about 500 copyrighted songs on the Internet. For Ms. Johnson, the story began when her Internet service provider explained that her account information had been subpoenaed. A second letter, from the recording artists? trade association (RIAA), made plain the seriousness of the charge.
According to the 16-year-old in question, his misadventures in music started with a school project. His complaint that everyone at his school does it but doesn?t ?get caught? is of little help now. By way of background the RIAA has sued approximately 2,400 times for copyright violations and settled with about one in every six cases since last September. The interest of the RIAA: a song traded on the Internet generates no royalty. Its members make a living off of the royalties from their works. By extension, the incentive to create new works is diminished without the promise of future revenues.
But surely no one wants to throw poor Grandma Johnson in the clink! What is one to do? What is one to think? Of course, intellectual property must be protected from infringement and theft just as other property is protected from trespass and misappropriation. Standards must exist by which violators can be prosecuted and compensation can be made to property owners. Yet, the governmental role can easily go too far. The principle tools for intellectual property ? copyright, patent and trademark ? are regularly manipulated by legislators intent on doling out special privileges to favored producers or consumers. The JLF tackled some of these questions in a study last year.
Alas, JLF is not alone. A new electronic journal called IPCentral Review is published online by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. The second issue was released today. The standard format of the journal is to present a paper with associated comments by other scholars. I highly recommend today?s paper, Alternative Copyright Systems: The Problems With A Compulsory License, by Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz teaches at the University of Texas at Dallas and is a frequent collaborator with Steve Margolis at NC State. Comments by Michael Abramowics on copyrighted public goods and Katherine Lawrence on markets in creativity are also posted.
The advent and widespread adoption of digital technologies ? from computers and storage disks to cameras and peer-to-peer networks ? has led some people to call for the end of copyright. In its place, academics and others promote a new system of compulsory licensing. I won?t go into details, Liebowitz is thorough, but compulsory systems smack of too much control and planning for my taste. If you want to learn more about what is happening in intellectual property, then bookmark IPCentral, read Liebowitz and attend a Shaftsbury Society or Headliner luncheon where you are likely to bump into Margolis.
