This book by William Patry is the latest offering in the recent spate of anti-copyright books aimed at the general public. I agree with the author’s overall conclusion that copyrights have been strengthened excessively, to the point that they achieve the opposite of the intended result- less creative works rather than more. However, I did not care for this book, a review copy of which was sent to me pre-publication by the publisher, Oxford University Press.
Patry is at his best when dealing with facts. Patry is undeniably a copyright expert and has an array of interesting and important historical information and data at his command. I enjoyed learning more about the history of copyrights and about the statistical shortcomings of the copyright industries. However, such content is unfortunately uncommon. Although the book is over 20% citations, Patry seems mostly to cite to the opinions of others, not to supporting facts or research.
This lack of intellectual rigor unfortunately causes the book to go off the rails on multiple occasions, never moreso than when he attacks the free market, and particularly Alan Greenspan, for our nation’s copyright ills. Frankly, the free market could not have less to do with copyright law, which is wholly a creation of government, as Patry acknowledges. It puzzles me that Patry attacks the copyright industries throughout the book for their anti-competitive lobbying, but fails to come to the conclusion that the problems with copyright law are simply a result of successful rent-seeking by large corporations, similar to the agricultural subsidy debacle and other government failures.
Instead, Patry spends most of the book eviscerating the movie industry for its use of metaphor. Metaphor is a common rhetorical tool and I remain unconvinced that it is a significant cause of the problems we face in copyright law. As a lawyer, surely Patry is familiar with the idea of putting forward the best and most convincing argument possible in support of one’s position. This obsession with the use of metaphor also seems unproductive as his book is not going to end the use of metaphors- I suppose he is attempting to reduce the effectiveness of such metaphors on the public?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Cliff I fear you misunderstand and misstate the very nature of the book. If I have, as you say 20% citations to others, that means there is 80% of other material; hardly lacking therefore in “supporting facts or research.” The book is not, moreover, intended as an historical or substantive book about copyright: I have a 6,000 page treatise on that. Instead, the book is, as you note one for general readers; as a result, it is not a research book. It is a book about how we talk and think about copyright, and it should be judged on those terms. Your complaints that I focus too much on the use of metaphor is to misunderstand the very premise of the book.
It is also not true as you suggest that I attack the free market. And I certainly never mention Alan Greenspan in connection with copyright as you wrongly imply. The discussion in question concerns arguments that markets (not the “free market” as you state) should be unregulated. I think they need to be regulated to protect the public, and I argue, as you agree, that copyright is a government grant and that therefore the government certainly has an obligation to ensure that its grant is being effectively used.
Finally, having actually worked in the legislative branch of the federal government, I think I have a far more intimate appreciation for lobbying and rent-seeking than you do, and thus could hardly have failed to understand the rent-seeking nature of corporate lobbying. My inquiry is different: on what basis is the rent-seeking occurring, and why is it successful?
I fear you simply missed the point if the book, entirely.
William,
The fact that 80% of your book is original material, as opposed to citations, hardly indicates that your book has supporting facts and research. Fiction books may have 100% original material- that does not mean that they are supported by facts. The point is not that I was expecting a copyright treatise, it is that you make many, many assertions in the book without much supporting evidence other than quotes from other people who agree with you.
If I wrote a book full of assertions like “the copyright industry is full of idiots who are doing exactly the wrong thing and costing their companies billions of dollars”, which is essentially what you repeat many times, I would include some objective evidence if I wanted to be taken seriously.
Your claim that you do not attack the free market appears totally disingenuous to me. On page 98 you claim that economic freedom, supported by an ideology of free market fundamentalism, is responsible for copyright ills such as the Walt Disney company threatening to sue an English stonemason with copyright infringement for carving Winnie the Pooh on a headstone for the parents of a stillborn child. You continue in a similar vein for many pages.
Yet, this argument is nonsensical and perplexing. How can free market fundamentalism have anything to do with copyrights, which only exist due to government regulation? A free market fundamentalist would not advocate ever-stronger government monopoly rights for copyright owners. I struggle to understand why that section is in the book, unless it is meant to capitalize on recent economic events by somehow tying them in to the subject of the book.
So those are two of the main things I disliked about the book- you make a number of forceful assertions that do not appear to be backed up by objective evidence, and you spend a lot of time talking about how free markets are bad, which seemed out of place and irrelevant.
Also, primarily the book is about the use of metaphor by the copyright industry. You can correct me if I am wrong here, but the whole basis of your book seems to be that the copyright industry is succeeding in destroying copyright law because it uses persuasive but deceptive moral arguments employing metaphor. These specious arguments should be ignored and legislation that is efficacious should be crafted. Maybe by swaying public opinion the balance of pressure on legislators can be changed.
That’s fine as far as it goes, but it just isn’t that interesting to me. Of course people are generally going to use the most persuasive arguments available to them. Every special interest tries to cloak itself in the guise of the public good and poses as the good guy. Is the copyright industry fundamentally different for some reason?
Is the bigger problem language, or is it government and its complicity in legislating corporate welfare at the expense of American consumers? It would have been more interesting- to me- if you had used your knowledge to at least raise and address that issue along the way.