Ophavsrettighedsdebatten

Hermed en formatteret og link-holdig gengivelse af et blogindlæg, jeg har i Børsen i dag:

Debatten for og imod immaterialretligheder, så som ophavsret, tog en finurlig drejning, da rettighedspirateri forleden opnåede statslig anerkendelse som en religion i Sverige under det passende navn kopimisme. Kirkens højeste læresætning er, at omdeling af kopier af andre menneskers rettighedsgenstande i sig selv er en religiøs tjeneste.

Hvem anerkendelsen siger mest om – piraterne eller det svenske Kammarkollegiet – skal vi lade stå usagt. Hvad der derimod skal påpeges er, at der for tiden pågår en voldsom debat om ophavsrettens fremtid og at fronterne på begge sider er trukket skarpt op.

Således har selv danske medier indenfor det seneste stykke tid talt om det såkaldte SOPA-lovforslag, der behandles i Repræsentanternes Hus i USA, der udvider rettighedshaveres mulighed for gennem en summarisk proces at lukke bl.a. hjemmesider ned via et fogdeforbud. Bølgerne går højt i dén debat – som de rettelig bør, når nu retsikkerheden står på spil. Det er med andre ord ikke blot en debat for debattens skyld.

På den velansete blog The Volokh Conspiracy bringes i dag et indlæg af William ”Bill” Patry under titlen ”How to Fix Copyright, Part I”. Patry selv, er amerikansk advokat, arbejder in-house for Google og er forfatter til Oxford-publikationerne Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars og How to Fix Copyright.

I blogindlægget præsenterer Patry sin nye bog – som er så ny, at jeg ikke selv har haft en chance for at se den igennem – hvori han forsøger at opstille en konstruktiv løsningsmodel på de problemer, han mener ophavsrettighedsinstituttet er ramt af. Indlæg af denne type skal altid læses med et stort caveat: Den vedrører amerikanske forhold. Men, når det er sagt, så er ophavsrettighedsområdet, i takt med internationaliseringen, ikke længere noget, staterne på nogen måde kan eller bør behandle for sig selv indenfor nationalstatens snævre ramme.

Patrys påstand er, at ophavsrettighedsinstituttet er ineffektivt. Som han siger: ”I believe laws are tools, not ends in themselves, and that we should measure, empirically, their effectiveness against their stated objective.” Heri kan man kun give ham ret. Det samme kan man, når det kommer til de mål, Patry mener ophavsretslove – generelt set – har til formål at nå:

[The] goals are often fleshed out in ways that fit into the following two syllogisms and one tautology. Syllogism number one: Copyright is the basis for creativity. Creativity is the basis for culture. Therefore, copyright is the basis for culture. Syllogism number two: Copyright is the basis for a knowledge-based economy. The knowledge-based economy is the basis for competitiveness. Therefore, copyright is the basis for competitiveness. The tautology is the statement that the creative industries are those industries dependent on copyright laws and therefore copyright laws are essential to the growth of the creative industries.

Bill Patry rammer derudover plet når han fremfører, at teknologi ikke i sig selv er ophavsrettens bane- eller redningsmand, men derimod intet andet end et middel, som faciliterer behov og behovstilfredsstillelse på markedet. – Og som han så korrekt siger:

”Changing markets and products are an economic fact of life: no copyright law can force people to buy things they do not want to buy, anymore than laws can outlaw recessions or business cycles.”

Opdatering: Bill Patrys 2. blogindlæg er udkommet d.d.

4 thoughts on “Ophavsrettighedsdebatten

  1. Nikolaj Hawaleschka Stenberg Forfatter

    @Thomas:

    Ligesom Murray Rothbard tager Stephen Kinsella ingen fanger. På godt og ondt.

    Svar
  2. Bill Patry

    Mr. Kinsella and I have had a nice discussion about his comments. He has a very strong ideology, I don’t. His criticisms are simply that I don’t share his very strong ideology: very few do, but in any event, if you are going to review any book solely by whether it shares your distinct minority ideology, then probably the only books you will truly like are the ones you write yourself. I noted too that Mr. Kinsella wrote a book called “How to Improve” intellectual property laws, and I wrote a book called “How to Fix Copyright Laws.” Not much different. We also shared a number of the same suggestions. So, to accuse me of incrementalism for writing a book called how to fix a system of laws, when he wrote a book called how to improve those same laws, seems to me the pot calling the kettle black. As for taking prisoners, sticking by an extreme ideology that has no chance of every making a single meaningful reform is not taking prisoners, but is instead howling at the wind. That said, I very much appreciate Mr. Kinsella’s calm, measured reply comments.

    Svar
  3. http://www.exhibitoronline.com/

    Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite
    reason appeared to be on the web the simplpest thing to be aware of.
    I say to you, I certainly get irked while people consider worries
    thzt they pplainly don’t know about.You managed to hit the
    nail uoon the top and also defined ouut the whole thing without having side-effects , people can take a
    signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

    Svar

Leave a Reply to Bill PatryCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.