[FC-discuss] Fwd: Appalling op-ed in today's WSJ

[Kevin Donovan]

A Georgetown professor alerted me to an awful WSJ op-ed on Mark Helprin. The
op-ed and his response is below. Would encourage others to respond, as well.


On 7/20/09, Michael R. Nelson
<mnelson at pobox.com<http://mc/compose?to=mnelson@pobox.com>>
wrote:
> There's an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal praising Mark Helprin's
book
> on why we need a longer term for copyright. I was so mad I wrote the
> following post on the WSJ Web site.  (I hope you'll weigh in to.)
>
> As a loyal and long-time reader of the Wall Street Journal who has read
thousands of op-eds in your pages, I have never been more appalled or
dismayed than I was when I read "A Writer's Tale" in this morning's edition.
Not only did the author, L. Gordon Crovitz, praise Mark Helprin's
simple-minded arguments for extending the term of copyright, he showed that
he understands the copyright system even less than Mr. Helprin. Intellectual
property is NOT like real estate. More than 200 years ago, in the US, a
printing press cost the equivalent of at least a million dollars. So the
Founding Fathers granted publishers a 14-year monopoly--a copyright--to
encourage them to invest in the equipment, talent, and distribution network
needed to print books and newspapers. Today, the Internet and digital
technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of creating and distributing
content. Yet for some reason, authors and content owners think they need
MORE incentives to create and distribute content. Mr. Helprin thinks that
authors will write more and singers will record more if their grandchildren
can be assured a steady stream of royalties. I disagree. What copyright
owners are really trying to do is use copyright to limit competition from
new creative content. When I took English literature classes in college, I
reading great poems of the 18th century that had more footnotes than
lines--every other phrase was borrowed or adopted from another, earlier
classic poem. Creativity is about new ideas and expressions but it's also
about repurposing and adapting old content.

The Wall Street Journal prides itself on its economic analysis and
fact-based reporting. So Mr. Crovitz should consider the following
fact--several of the world's top economists have analyzed the benefits of
the copyright system. Using different approaches, they have tried to
calculate the optimum term of a copyright, assuming the goal of the
copyright system is to maximize the benefit to society--rather than solely
the benefit to Disney and other content owners. The answer? Depending upon
the assumptions made, somewhere between six and fourteen years!! In other
words, our Founding Fathers were right back in 1790.

Larry Lessig has done an outstanding analysis of the misperceptions and
inaccuracies in Mark Helprin's book. It's available at
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/05/20/Halperin-print.pdf. I suggest Mr.
Crovitz read it and then write a retraction. Or better yet, perhaps the Wall
Street Journal should give Larry Lessig at least as much space as it
dedicated to Mr. Crovitz's attempt to praise (and sell) Helprin's book.
Incidentally, I note that the Journal has run four pieces on Mark Helprin's
book: an op-ed by Mr. Helprin, a positive book review, today's piece by Mr.
Crovitz, and two letters to the editors. That's not a balanced assessment of
the arguments Mr. Helprin makes. Is it possible that this reflects the fact
that News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, has been one of the
most ardent advocates for extending the copyright monopoly even further and
limiting fair use. Or might it be due to the fact that News Corps. owns
HarperCollins, Mark Helprin's publisher?