Evgenij Barsukov said:
The problem with this is - there is already state supported
copy-right protection, which makes existing system economicaly
viable (and is payed for by your taxes). However, remove or scale-back
the state sponsored copy-right protection, and than indeed you could
see undistorted picture how the alternative systems work and compete
with each other.
It is like just with any kinds of subsidies - the goverment
control over copy-right is a subsidy to one specific way of handling
content creators compensation, which happens to be conter-productive
because it punishes the users of knowledge instead of encouraging them.
This subsidy makes this method apear economicaly viable compared to
others. Remove this subsidy, and it might turn out that other ways of
handling are more efficient.
Here, Evgenij makes a valid point.
Traditionally, up until the 1990s, copyright and patents were not
really procatively enforced by the government. The government did not
seek to prevent copyright and patent violation. The copyright and
patent holder had to seek out such violations, and sue, or obtain an
injunction. The most active role that the government played was
putting a product that violated a patent on a proscribed list that
forbid import into the United States.
(OK... maybe the police involvement in stamping out (pun) the illegal
vinyl record copying rackets was proactive. But such proactivity was
rare.)
One thing that I do not like nowadays is that Microsoft et al are
trying to set things up so that OUR tax dollars are spent enforcing
THEIR copyrights and patents. Worse, distorting US foreign
policy. Worse still, enforcing their IP by making consumer electronics
devices more costly and less functional. (I am waiting for the day
that my video camera refuses to run because there is a digitally
watermarked video playing on a monitor, or a song playing in the
background.)
Libertarians might say that enforcing property rights is the role of
government - in their opinion, the only role of government.
I say that all property rights are subject to economics. We might try
to establish property rights in the molecules of gas exhaled from our
lungs, or, perhaps emitted by an ionizing air cleaner. However, it is
infeasible, and certainly uneconomic, to do so. We choose to enforce
property rights only where it is economic to enforce them.
By increasing the government subsidies for enforcement of intellectual
property rights, we are allowing property rights to expand into areas
that they would not expand to under the old regime, where the IP
holder paid most of the expense.
Compare to an example in real property: the government (the police)
might subsidize (enforce) your right to prevent your neighbor dumping
garbage into your lot - IF they can clearly see where the property
line is, and IF they catch the neighbor in the act. But the police
aren't going to spend time and manpower staking out your lot just to
catch your neighbor in the act. You have to do that yourself. Hire a
private investigator, or install a video camera.
Similarly, if your neighbor's fence intruded into your yard, the
government will not directly enforce your property rights. You will
have to pay for a survey, and take it to court. The courts will give
you the right to request the neighbor move the fence, or to forcibly
remove it if he refuses. The police *might* monitor you removing the
disputed fence, to prevent the possibility of a breach of the peace.
They might prevent the neighbour from assaulting you. But the police
won't remove it for you.
In general, the government enforces criminal law directly. For civil
matters you are given the right to obtain remedies, and the government
may protect your right.
Seeking to have the government enforce intellectual property rights,
both directly, and indirectly by techniques such as copy-protection
chips, has created an unprecedented change in the balance between
civil and criminal law.
