OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 The Fluidity of Copyright Law: Emerging Internet Technologies Raise Legitimate Questions Surrounding the Nature and Scope of Property Rights & Copyright Protection By Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT) Let me begin by saying that as a Conservative, I believe in and respect property rights - whether the property in question is physical, personal, or intellectual. Without sufficient protection of intellectual property, we would not have companies such as Novell or Ebay, employing thousands of Americans, including many in my district. The global marketplace for books written by American authors, movies created by American directors, and songs performed by American artists flourishes in part because our nation respects creativity and provides a legal framework that encourages it. Indeed, this tradition of respect for intellectual property in America dates back to the founding of the Republic. No lesser authorities than the framers of the Constitution saw fit to include in that document a paragraph granting Congress the authority to protect creative works. Article One, Section 8, paragraph 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." It is important to recognize, as the Founding Fathers did, that there are some significant distinctions between physical property and intellectual property. Perhaps the most striking difference between physical property and intellectual property is that when you sell physical property (or give it away), it is gone. Yet, intellectual property may be disseminated thousands of times, often without lessening its value. Indeed, in stark contrast to physical property, in our modern and networked world, intellectual property often becomes more valuable the more it is sold or given away. (Microsoft's distribution of Internet Explorer is but one obvious example of this dynamic.) These differences extend beyond the conceptual to include the practical. In dealing with the complexities of intellectual property over the years, Congress has balanced competing interests. The Congressionally-guided evolution of copyright law over the last two centuries has sought to maintain a delicate balance that: (1) maintains a strong incentive for authors to write, painters to paint, and composers to compose; (2) ensures that the public will have access to intellectual property for a variety of purposes; and (3) allows creators some measure of (but not necessarily total) control over the destiny of their creations. This balancing act is more difficult than ever as we enter the digital age. In our hands we clutch constructs of law that have served us well in the past, but may quickly become outdated. Nevertheless, our goals remain the same. Foremost among these goals, I believe, is ensuring that adequate incentives to creativity remain in place. As such, I cannot and will not support anyone who profits off of other people's creativity or innovation, yet fails to compensate the creator. However, facilitating public access to creative works is also a key goal - one that is in no way inconsistent with Congress providing incentives for creativity. And with that thought in mind, I would like to specifically address the issue of the digital music distribution market place. As some may know, I have experience as a venture capitalist, starting more than a decade ago with Utah-based Geneva Steel. But as e-commerce has taken hold, I have moved the focus of my efforts to the technology arena. Like most venture capitalists, I have watched companies such as Musicmaker.com, Riffage.com, and others that had hoped to distribute music via the Internet, go out of business. To be sure, the failure of online music distribution to take hold is, in part, rooted in the immaturity of the marketplace and the lack of residential broadband access that would allow for high-speed downloads of music and information. 87 |