Australian opponents of copyright term extensions represent them as a battle between nations, in which Australia as a net user of copyrighted materials will suffer. In support of this view they quote the Ergas Report, and also the arguments of the 17 eminent economists who famously contributed to the Eldred case. (Akerlof, 2002)
However the copyright battle is not really between nations, but between creators and freeloaders in all nations. Australians are not dumb consumers in these markets. In software, modern games and film special effects, markets have been global since the early 1990's, and Australians have been competing and succeeding. Those industries gain from stronger IP protection and IP industries are important for future economic wealth. Accordingly, I think the gains from harmonising with other Western nations outweigh concerns such as those advanced by Ergas.
It's worth bearing in mind that Ergas was assessing term extensions in their own right, rather than as part of an international agreement like the FTA. Also, Ergas (2002: 5) was strongly in favour of copyright as a mechanism for fostering competition. For example, he writes:
An effective system to define and enforce intellectual property rights is critical for this type of dynamic competition to occur on a material scale. The creation of intellectual property involves intellectual effort and can entail substantial resource outlays. Private producers will not have an incentive to make these outlays unless they receive an appropriate return.
Put slightly differently, without a system of intellectual property rights it is difficult to prevent free riding by those who did not contribute to the original investment.
Creators could therefore find it difficult to recoup the cost of their investment, let alone its economic value. Under these circumstances, economic incentives for intellectual property investment would likely be deficient, leading to under-investment in creative effort. To varying extents and in varying ways, the intellectual property laws help redress this problem, and hence make possible investment in, and rivalry through, innovation.
In practical terms too, the nature of the copyright imbalance is not overwhelming. In 2002 - 03, Australia paid royalties and licence fees of $1.82 billion to the rest of the world, while receiving royalties and licence fees of $618 million, according to ABS figures cited in a report prepared for the Australian Parliamentary Library. The reasons for that imbalance go much deeper than copyright legislation. (ABS, 2003)
More importantly, the part actually affected by the proposed term extensions is almost infinitesimal, being only 4.5 pages in every 10,000 copied at universities, for example, according to the Copyright Agency Limited, which is in a position to make such determinations. The additional cost per student is less than one cent per year. (Copyright Agency, 2004)
The arguments of the 17 famous economists have received a respectful response from Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas and Stephen Margolis of North Carolina State University.
They contend that, although the present value of future term extensions might be small, it might also represent a cross-over point for writers and other creators on marginal incomes, thus encouraging the creation of more works.
Second, they point out that publishing, movies and computer games are businesses that depend on occasional hits. High revenue streams from occasional hits subsidise a large range of additional titles. For example, the 124 best selling books in 1987 generated $1 billion of total $1.7 billion sales for that year, according to research by Liebowitz. In this context, the additional revenue from term extensions might be an essential part of the publishing process, rather than the superfluous profits that extension critics claim. (Liebowitz & Margolis, 2004: 13)
The arguments of the 17 economists also appear in and have been popularised by Lessig's work, including his latest book, Free Culture. Lessig's claim in respect of Disney has been addressed by Stephen Manes (2004), writing in Forbes magazine, who points out that Disney did not simply appropriate earlier work, but paid the copyright owners for it. Lessig has acknowledged this criticism, albeit without grace.
Liebowitz and Margolis ( 2004: 5) also identify a problem in the claim of free culturists that greater distribution causes no harm to the creator. There are certain works where it does. People value uniqueness and variety, which is why expensive cars preserve their premium prices even though there are cheaper alternatives, and why art works are sometimes given unique serial numbers. Further, some derivative works can damage the original. Therefore, they conclude, IP plays an important role of stewardship.
In any case, Lessig's argument is dubious on the grounds that the creating of software, movies or books does not preclude others from using the same environment and world for deriving their innovation. An obvious exemption is documentaries, but if they choose to base themselves on others' work, it is entirely appropriate that they acknowledge the work of the original author or film-maker. Similarly, I disagree with AIMIA's contention that stronger copyright will somehow harm Australian game developers. Original developers benefit from stronger copyright. AIMIA does not actually represent game developers.
Library groups also raise the problem of needing to obtain permission from copyright owners before digitising large collections of older material. However digitising material has significant consequences, since it facilitates greatly expanded distribution that might undermine the copyright owners' interest in that material. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that proper permission needs to be obtained from copyright owners.
14%
7%
"Open Source is bad for Australia" is such a blanket statement that I would have to disagree.
The author makes valid points about GPL on occasions hindering, rather than enhancing business, but GPL is not the only Open Source model. GPL is often used with the attitude "I am not making any money out of publishing this code, so why should anyone else." Unfortunately, R&D investment can not be warranted "commercially" on a GPL system, because the entity spending the money does not get any benefit (except knowing they might make the world a better place).
There are also instances where Open Source would be detrimental to commercial interests in Australia. But Open Source often brings benefits, which is why I disagree. One of the problems with proprietary source code is that if the particular vendor goes bankrupt, or a relationship sours with a vendor, your data is effectively held hostage (Most of the time, you can not simply port to another vendor's package). Whilst open source doesn't guarentee flexibility (there may be binding contracts even in open source), in my view you are certainly more secure.
Secondly, many open source products are free. This is not co-incidental, but a consequence of GPL and alike. In fact, this is one of the factors hinted at in the article. I would like to suggest that Open Source classes, databases, languages, APIs and alike can significantly reduce development time. Most open source products have public documentation, so they don't need to be re-documented. Furthermore, not having to pay license fees can assist a software company to be more profitable.
Thirdly, on following on from point two, cheaper development costs inevitably lead to more competitive markets and cheaper prices to the end user. This makes software more accessable to Australians.