From Kevin Smith, Scholarly Communications Officer at Duke University:
I have to start by saying that I am not an economist, and I know just enough to understand that economic analysis is never simple or straightforward. And yet, when these two different news items came to my attention in a short time frame, the link between the two of them still seemed pretty obvious.
Yesterday, Reuters news service ran an article about a rating of eleven countries based on their enforcement of intellectual property rights. The index was prepared at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by a group called The Global Intellectual Property Center, and it ranks the U.S. at the top of the list in terms of strong IP protection (23.73 points on a scale from 0 – 25). But what is interesting is who scored lowest (out of the eleven countries that were ranked). The four “worst” countries for providing the strong IP protection important to the Chamber of Commerce were the four countries known as BRIC — Brazil, India, Russia and China.
. . . .
So the four countries driving economic growth are also the four countries with the weakest IP protection regimes, amongst those 11 rated by the Chamber of Commerce report. Doesn’t the conclusion seem simple, that weaker IP enforcement is part of the picture for economic growth?
. . . .
Correlations can be tricky things, but I think some modest conclusions are justified. First, obviously, ratcheting up IP protection is no guarantee of economic prosperity. As we will discuss further in a moment, it is very possible for nations, industries and even individual creators to thrive without relying on a strong government-created monopoly over the products of the human intellect. Second, I think it is also clear that there is a point where IP protections can be too rigorously enforced, to the extent that they impede economic progress. Indeed, it seems likely that the US, with its high score on the survey described above, has reached that point; at a recent forum sponsored by Federal Trade Commission, Professor Collen Chien of Santa Clara University pointed out that for the first time in 2012, a majority of patent lawsuits were brought by so-called “patent trolls” — companies that do not invent or create anything but exist simply to buy up patents and then demand licensing fees from companies that are trying to create and invent. These licensing fees can reach the point where they are nothing more than a government-enforced tax on innovation. The situation developing in the US with patent “thickets” and patent trolling is a painful example of how broad grants and strict enforcement of IP rights can inhibit economic development.
. . . .
Consider the example of the Nigerian film industry, often referred to at Nollywood. The Nigerian film industry has boomed over the past two decades, largely by becoming one of the world’s leading producers of digital video films. And they have done this in a environment that “has not historically had robust intellectual property enforcement.“ As this research paper from the University of California, Irvine Law School suggests, IP protection is, at least a double edged sword. Piracy can reduce revenues, but it also helps to create distribution channels and grow markets. So creative industries seeking to grow in the digital economy need to do more than try, futilely, to eradicate piracy, they need to seek ways to shape their markets and their marketing to exploit the audiences that it can create.
. . . .
Finally, if we want a very current, individual example, we need look no further than the Korean pop star Psy, whose “Gangnam Style” video is now the most watched YouTube video in history and who stands to make $8.1 million dollars from the fame that he has gained by not enforcing his copyright. Very few of us had probably heard of Psy before the Gangnam Style video became the subject of the many parodies and remakes that flooded YouTube, blogs, college campuses, etc. He took no action to prevent those “knock offs,” as many artists and production companies would have done. Instead, his fame grew to the point where he could license his song and his image for commercial uses at levels he could only have dreamed off if he enforced his copyright rigorously. In short, he found a way to monetize “piracy.”
Link to the rest at Scholarly Communications @ Duke and thanks to Matthew for the tip.