Freedom was attacked from two very different points of view: from the state interventionism (social planner proposition) and from the Anti IP movement (don’t attack me yet, let me explain).
I won’t belabor the second point, which has already been pontificated:
Importantly, unique art cannot be copied and digitally distributed. That is, the substance might be copied, but not the original thing, art resides with the act of the artist, which cannot be replicated, except by the artist herself. This is evident from the fact that record labels are not profitable, and unique live performances are what win musicians their bread.
Oops[1]... Should I have been using quotation marks?
As I hinted last class, I have at least sympathy for the “social planner” regime in countries like France.[2] Professor Picker mentioned last class that to endorse such an option entails a foundational shift in though, but if Professor Merges’ book is not an opportunity to think big-picture, what is?
Here are some examples of France’s attack on freedom:
- France set quotas on foreign film screenings after World War II, while funding it’s own film production through quality-rewarding programs.[3]
- 1% of France’s budget goes to supporting the arts.
- The French government supports artists who devote 507 hours of their year to a specific art.[4]
- The French government recently (2009) combated homophobia by sponsoring a series of films.[5]
- Last, the French have considered a tax on websites including Google and Facebook, the proceeds of which would support the web presence of French artists.[6]
I share some of Pedro’s concerns about the single-entity decision-making many of these programs represent. The French government is choosing to combat homophobia and fund only certain arts—clearly policy decisions. But we might be less concerned about single-entity decisions in a context like France’s—a smaller country with a multitude of equally pretentious neighbors—than in a context like China’s. Further, some of these programs seem less political if we are concerned with efficiency and artistic progress. Much of the 1% of France’s budget that goes towards the arts goes towards museums, for example, which draw millions of visitors to the capitol each year and ensure that French art maintain its status in the world.[7] And contrary to Ryan’s position that charity is accomplished more efficiently through private parties than through government spending, any firm assertion of either position in the art world would be too bold to consider.[8]
My first long-winded point is thus: at least in the realm of art, there are viable social-planning alternatives to enforced copyright regimes. Those alternatives could equally protect and encourage the creative professionals Professor Merges wants to reward, while allowing for the “art qua art” that Angus seems so interested in.
The bigger, unanswered question: do any of Merges’ primers—that property should be treated as a right, that we should consider transaction costs and distributional effects, and that we should err in favor of allowing transactions and waiver—actually suggest that strong IP laws and litigated outcomes are normatively better than some government sponsorship and government-overseen IP transactions? For me the evidence is lacking and the answer uncertain.
[1] looks pretty replicated to me. apologies to pedro and angus for my theft.
[4] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent, couldn’t find it in English.
[5] http://www.queerty.com/french-government-combats-homophobia-by-sponsoring-films-now-brought-to-nyc-by-a-queer-arts-foundation-20110610/
[8] On the side of private party patronage, see the Renaissance. On the other hand, see the best State-sponsored poster ever: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc517/m1/1/
Comments