What Do the Election Results Mean for I.P.?

(Photo: Ron Cogswell)

In the wake of President Obama‘s solid re-election victory last night, we are left wondering (geeks that we are) about what (if anything) an Obama second term suggests about the future of IP law.  We’ll talk mostly about copyright policy here: Any action on IP policy in the next couple of Congresses would probably focus on copyright, not least because we’ve just been through a substantial reform of the patent law and no one has any appetite to revisit that right away.

Even focusing only on copyright, the picture is far from clear.  Millions of people joined in a wave of online activism back in January to defeat the copyright expansions offered in the SOPA and PIPA bills.  But the coalition that defeated SOPA and PIPA is new and no one’s sure whether it’s a one-off or the beginning of a broader movement to slow, stop, or even reverse copyright’s relentless expansion. We’d note also that two of the entertainment industry’s favorite people in the House, Reps. Howard Berman and Mary Bono Mack, were both defeated last night. We doubt the losses have much to do with the pair’s outspoken copyright maximalism, but losing Berman and Bono is a further blow to a pro-copyright side that is still getting its collective head around the SOPA/PIPA debacle.

We’ll make a (tentative) prediction: In the short-term, at least, the uncertainty following the defeat of SOPA and PIPA will lead to paralysis. We doubt that Congress will step up to the plate for any significant expansion of copyright, at least for now.  Gigi Sohn of the online rights group Public Knowledge has issued a similar forecast.

The real question is what happens in the longer term. An increasing number of young people — the so-called “Digital Natives” — operate within an online environment in which they encounter norms and practices based around a freer environment for experiencing, sharing, and re-using content versus what the formal rules of copyright allow. Put more simply, the expectations of the Digital Natives, evidenced by their actual behavior online, are often at odds with the copyright law. And the collision between online culture and copyright is likely to have great salience for the Digital Natives — a group that values online freedom, both to consume and to create. We’re not really interested in whether these norms are right or wrong — moral judgment isn’t our comparative advantage. What interests us is how the political system will respond when the Digital Natives — who will comprise a larger share of voters soon — see instances of copyright invading their lives.

Our guess is that although copyright isn’t really an important national political issue now, it may well become one.  And if it does, there are a couple of possibilities.  First, if the GOP’s very deep losses last night prompt the party to take a good look at its future prospects, it’s possible that smart Republicans might conclude that elections will simply not be winnable in future unless the party finds a way to capture a larger share of the youth (and non-white) vote. One way to appeal to young people would be to identify with their interest in online freedom. And this would lead to a GOP that favors narrower copyright. This might be a good strategy for the GOP not least because the party doesn’t depend much now on the entertainment industry, compared with the Democrats, for whom it is a large source of support. If the GOP can drive a wedge between young people and entertainment industry-loving Democrats, that may be worth doing.

Now, this is not the only plausible outcome, and the Democrats have a possible strategy of their own.  Seemingly endless growth in Silicon Valley and the tech industry generally are both raising tech’s political profile, and leading to fights between content producers and Silicon Valley tech companies — aka, content exploiters. And this presents a puzzle for Democrats. How to solidify ties to Silicon Valley while not cutting ties to the entertainment industry? The balancing act that’s necessary to keep both constituencies happy suggests that the Dems’ approach to copyright policy will no longer be limited to asking “what does the entertainment industry want?”  The question will be the more complicated one of “what can we do to help content providers while not angering the Valley and also alienating the youth vote that is a very important part of our winning coalition?”

In any event, we are hopeful for a brighter future for copyright policymaking. One that does not simply look like a process of giving the entertainment industry whatever it demands, but instead, carefully balances the costs and rewards of copyright.  Time will tell.


Op-Ed on Freakonomics? Is this common?


More broadly, given your point about digital natives socializing (and being socialized) online as much as off - most foreign countries social Norms are far to the left of the GOP (and usually to the left of the democrats too), how much of the views of this larger peer group will rub off on digital natives, leading them to be even less aligned to the SOCIAL policies of the GOP.

Eric M. Jones.

Yes, I sense some attempt to show the Democrats as mere political shills of Hollywood. (I sense that one more step and we'll hear about the liberal media...). Maybe Hollywood is liberal because they are generally pretty smart. I hear they even teach evolution and science in schools in California.

BTW: Silicon Valley doesn't go by the nickname of "the Valley". The Valley is where all the copyright- protected porn gets made.


I reject your basic presumption that teaching evolution and science determines intellect, as well as your position that liberalism is a condition of intelligence. Which pretty much negates your whole post as nothing more than rhetorical fallacy. Which further substantiates the shallow cognition of liberalism.


IP law? SOPA? PIPA? Might help to explain to us what you are referring to instead of assuming we know or that we will do a search on the internet.

Imad Qureshi

Apparently, this post was not for you.


I don't think the election means anything for IP given that nothing changed politically in terms of which party controlled which branches of government.

Rather, I think that IP disputes will only get resolved once producers and users reach agreement on what constitutes "fair use", something which the government and politics has little role in.

Right now the problem is that while users believe that "fair use" should enable them to do whatever they want with an item of intellectual property once they have purchased it, producers want to keep control of intellectual property for as long as they can milk profits out of it.

For example, the reason I have not gotten into the whole e-book craze despite being a voracious reader is because I can't share e-books with friends and family once I am done with them like I can with a physical copy. There's no market for "used" e-books.....


There is actually a real issue here-reverse colonialism. The Chinese and others trade access to military and commercial/industrial secrets for music and movie security. This is much like the Dutch trading beads and cloths for Manhattan Island. For example, the Chinese have developed an advanced Stealth Fighter in record time using technology very similar to our F-35. Nary a word made about it in the media. The media-government complex makes the military-industrial complex look weak, and the mainstream media can be counted on to continue ignoring issues like this.

The government tells companies to spend their own money to protect their IP and secure their own supply chains while spending billions and dedicating FBI, CIA and NSA resources on behalf of the entertainment industry. There is also the security issue of forcing those agencies to "work with" the entertainment companies staffers. Can anyone here guess how much time and money was expended taking down Megaupload? I don't support what Megaupload was doing, but I do think the entertainment industry has the resources to pursue groups like this on it's own. Our taxpayer resources are better spent protecting Americas security and economy. Legislation like PIPA and SOPA only further distorted cyber-security priorities.


Thomas B.

It's like a mini-third rail, where there's a small risk of controversy, but small potential benefit since the industry is small and located primarily in one state.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us '0 which is not a hashcash value.


I am glad this article made mention of the IP exploiters...often the debate only considers IP producers (those who own copyright) and the users/consumers of IP.

Right now Pandora is advocating for the "Internet Radio Fairness Act" arguing that it is unfair for them to pay 50% of their revenue to the IP producers (Songwriters/Publishers and Artists/Labels). This is analogous to Starbucks asking Congress to step in and force the growers of coffee beans to lower their prices because Starbucks wants to make more profit. But the fact remains: without coffee beans, Starbucks cannot exist. And without music, Pandora cannot exist.

So Pandora is a tech company that I would imagine employ only a handful of people...50? Maybe 100 are in their staff? Yet they have 300,000 tracks from around 30,000 artists.
So yes, I agree. Paying 50% of their revenue towards royalties is unfair. They should be paying 80-90%.