“American innovation hinges on creativity – it is what allows our kids to dream big and our artists to create works that inspire us all. The jobs that result are thanks entirely to our willingness to foster creative talent, and an environment where it can thrive and prosper.

“Serving that notion is exactly what this new caucus will do, and I’m thrilled to have Congressman Coble as my Co-Chair. He has a long record on supporting greater protections for American ingenuity and intellectual property. I look forward to continuing that work with him on these important issues,” said Rep. Chu.

Over the last twenty years, arguments for broader copyright have taken an increasingly mercantilist turn. Rather than argue for broader copyright in terms of more or better original works, proponents have begun arguing for broader copyright on the basis of revenue and jobs. Consumer copying is theft or piracy, proponents insist, depriving copyright owners of revenue and destroying jobs. In this article, I review these arguments and show that they are empty. While the Internet and digital technology has made widespread consumer copying a reality, broader copyright can be justified only if this copying has interfered with the creation and dissemination of new original works. But it has not. Using a hand-coded data set examining the number of new artists and cover songs in the top fifty of the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the first week of each month for the years 1990-2010, I show that while music industry revenue has fallen sharply since Napster opened its virtual doors, output in the music industry, both in terms of quantity and quality, has increased just as sharply. Part of the explanation for this seemingly paradoxical result, is that the digital revolution, while it has made consumer copying trivially easily, has also reduced costs, risks, and barriers to entry in the music industry. Yet, this cannot be a complete explanation.

To account for the rest, I offer a theoretical model and a simple explanation for why the incentives for music creation have remained sufficient in the face of widespread consumer copying: Consumers don't just love music generally; they love their particular favorite artists and their specific favorite songs. While consumers would like to get music for free, they know that they have to support their favorite artists in order to get and to continue getting the music they want. As a result, self-interest tends to ensure that consumers do not free ride too much. While the resulting market is unlikely to be perfect, legislation from Congress is not likely to improve the situation. Just as product markets fail in predictable circumstances, so too do political markets. When, as in the debate over broader copyright, proposed legislation benefits a concentrated interest group, such as copyright owners, at the expense of a dispersed interest group, such as copyright consumers, Congress is systematically likely to get the answer of how much copyright is optimal wrong, and badly wrong at that. In short, we have far more to fear from government intervention in the markets for original works than we do from leaving these markets alone.

While I recognize the political difficulty, and perhaps futility, of proposing a constitutional amendment limiting Congress's power in this area, I think it is time, and past time, to put such options on the table. It has been over two hundred years since our Constitution was written, and we have a much better sense today for where representative democracy works and where it fails. Because copyright benefits a concentrated and well-organized interest group at the expense of a dispersed group, establishing an optimal copyright regime is simply not something Congress has done or will do well. We should therefore limit Congress's power to act on this issue. At the simplest, such a constitutional amendment might follow Jefferson's suggestion and substitute "for no more than fourteen years" for the phrase "for limited times" in Article I, section 8, clause 8. Taking it a step further, an amendment might specify or limit the nature of the "exclusive rights" that Congress may grant. I fully recognize that such an approach would enshrine a set of rights that, even if optimal today, may not prove optimal for all time. Such an approach would almost certainly impose a set of legal rights that will not fit perfectly the needs of the future, as technology and markets change. Nevertheless, I believe that such an approach remains preferable to our current approach. Any welfare losses that may result from constitutionalizing today's optimal set of rights and imposing those rights onto the future would be less than the welfare losses that will result, and have resulted, from leaving the issue to Congress. Given how overbroad copyright has become, even an amendment barring Congress (and the states as well) from granting exclusive rights to authors for their writings altogether would be better than where we find ourselves today.

for the copyright industries to receive more revenue, consumers must pay more for works of authorship. Broader copyright, after all, does not generate revenue from thin air. It has to come from somewhere. If consumers have to pay more for works of authorship, they will have less to spend on everything else. Thus, more revenue for the copyright industries necessarily means less revenue for other sectors of the economy. If more revenue for copyrighted works means more jobs for the copyright industries, presumably less revenue everywhere else means fewer jobs elsewhere in the economy

But again and again, throughout the report, the pattern emerges: an allegation is made, Huawei denies it, without providing evidence deemed detailed enough to substantiate the denial, and the Committee is unimpressed.

One fundamental failure of all this official hand-wringing is that it neglects the fact that many if not most of the components, with the exception of certain higher-value chips like those from Intel, are manufactured in China. Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks in the U.S., Alcatel-Lucent in France and Ericsson in Sweden, all use Chinese-made parts and carry out at least some portion of the final assembly of their equipment in China.

Might China respond with its own restrictions against U.S. telecom firms like Cisco and Juniper? Is this the first shot of a telecom trade war? We’ll see.

If that happens, expect Cisco to be hurt more than Huawei. U.S. sales account for only 4 percent of its overall revenue, whereas Cisco’s operations in Asia, the Pacific Rim and China account for more than 16 percent, and China was its second fastest-growing market in that region after Japan.

When somebody buys something, no matter what, they own it. They have the right to do pretty much anything with it, they have the right to perform work on the object they have bought. Such work includes duplicating the object that you own; on a fair and free market, such duplication work is an offering like any other that competes with other people performing a duplication of the object in question.

In culture sharing, people perform this work for free for one another – duplicate files for one another – as a good social deed, just like helping anybody else out with your own time is a good deed. (The copyright industry tries to vilify this activity as somehow being immoral and unfair, which completely misses the positive social mechanisms of good people helping friends and strangers alike, and only makes the copyright industry appear absurd, anachronistic, and downright evil.)

The competition in the copyright monopoly and culture-sharing field is about who executes the “copy file” command the most cost-efficiently. That is largely a pointless debate, as the cost of executing a “copy file” command is trillionths of a cent – nobody would buy it from anybody, as everybody can do it themselves. Claiming a legal right to charge a premium of a gazillion percent over and above the real cost of this service is absurd and macroeconomically counterproductive.

In a fair and free market, competitiveness rules, and nobody has a monopoly – such as the copyright monopoly – on doing a particular kind of work, like duplication of a specific object. If somebody else can duplicate your original at a lower cost than yourself, then you weren’t able to compete and you’ll find yourself out of business. That’s called marginal cost – that competition takes place on the additional cost of every product once the investments are made, on the cost of duplicating an original – and that’s how the market works for all products in fair and free markets. It’s actually Economics 101.

At a PIJIP-hosted seminar on intellectual property and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) last week, present and former Chilean trade officials questioned whether joining the TPP would be worth its costs if it included additional demands on intellectual property.

The officials voicing this concern included Senator Ricardo Lagos, son of the former president of Chile and lead of the negotiation of the US-Chile free trade agreement (FTA) as the head of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Trade Policy under President Michelle Bachelet; Alvaro DÃíaz, of CEPAL, the former Ambassador of Chile to Brazil and a senior official in the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Trade Policy at the time of the US-Chile FTA negotiation; and Ana Novik, a current senior official in DIRECON (the Ministry of Foreign Relations) overseeing the current TPP negotiations.

Each of the presenters explained that Chile already has market access agreements with every country in the TPP region, and therefore the trade benefits of joining TPP are likely to be minimal. Each therefore questioned whether the costs of joining TPP, especially in terms of any presumed increased obligations to expand proprietor rights in intellectual property law demanded by the U.S., would be worth incurring.

"The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods."

The essence of my comment was that certain provisions of ACTA are new to our legal system (more severe punishment, more control of internet providing services) and I do not see why those provisions are necessary.

I have also stated that our life is more and more dependent on R&D, new inventions, creativity. Existing IP protection system, however, is more about protecting the IP protection industry than a protection of inventors and authors. Current debate worldwide is a clear sign that we have to re-evaluate the existing IP rights system.

The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was out-manned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."

That main issue, we're told over and over again, is "piracy" and specifically "rogue" websites. And, let's be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? Much of the evidence suggests that it's not an enforcement problem and it's not a legal problem. Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all -- and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement. That's because the reason that there's infringement in the first place is that consumers are being under-served. Historically, infringement has never been about "free," but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology.

Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.

And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement.

I found myself profoundly disturbed by something that seems to me to go to the root of the problem in Washington: the failure to correctly diagnose the problem we are trying to solve, but instead to accept, seemingly uncritically, the claims of various interest groups. The offending paragraph is as follows:

"Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders."

In the entire discussion, I've seen no discussion of credible evidence of this economic harm. There's no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?

In my experience at O'Reilly, the losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information, which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content. Most of the people who are downloading unauthorized copies of O'Reilly books would never have paid us for them anyway; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of others are buying content from us, many of them in countries that we were never able to do business with when our products were not available in digital form.

History shows us, again and again, that frontiers are lawless places, but that as they get richer and more settled, they join in the rule of law. American publishing, now the largest publishing industry in the world, began with piracy. (I have a post coming on that subject on Monday.)

Congress (and the White House) need to spend time thinking hard about how best to grow our economy - and that means being careful not to close off the frontier, or to harm those trying to settle it, in order to protect those who want to remain safe at home. British publishers could have come to America in the 19th century; they chose not to, and as a result, we grew our own indigenous publishing industry, which relied at first, in no small part, on pirating British and European works.

If the goal is really to support jobs and the American economy, internet "protectionism" is not the way to do it.

It is said (though I've not found the source) that Einstein once remarked that if given 60 minutes to save the world, he would spend 55 of them defining the problem. And defining the problem means collecting and studying real evidence, not the overblown claims of an industry that has fought the introduction of every new technology that has turned out, in the end, to grow their business rather than threaten it.

If Congress and the White House really want to fight pirates who are hurting the economy, they should be working to rein in patent trolls. There, the evidence of economic harm is clear, in multi-billion dollar transfers of wealth from companies building real products to those who have learned how to work the patent system while producing no value for consumers.

Another section (PDF) of the trade deal seems to recognize only a limited right by Americans to create and use computer programs of their choice.

It says: "Each party recognizes that consumers in its territory should be able to...run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

A U.S. trade official, who did not want to be named, told CNET that the language is "hortatory" and therefore not binding--in other words, it's a recognition, not a commitment to actually do anything.

The Assembly of the International Broadcasting Association today approved a resolution tabled by the Brazilian Radio and Television Association (BRTA) asking the Brazilian authorities to regulate the production and distribution of media content entering the country via the Net.

The BRTA accuses foreign groups of producing journalistic content and entertainment, violating Article 222 of the Federal Constitution, which limits foreign ownership of media companies and broadcasters to 30%.

According to the resolution the failure of the regulatory framework represents a "grave violation of Brazilian sovereignty."

This is a metaphor.

This country has a deep and rich history of developing innovative products and groundbreaking inventions that have helped to shape our world. Intellectual property is one of America's greatest assets and protection of these assets is vital to our economy, our health, and our legacy.

Today, as we recognize the 11th Annual World Intellectual Property Day, we celebrate the creativity and innovation of American music, literature, film, art and the inventive spirit that have set this country apart. The growth of new technologies, increased broadband access to the Internet and global manufacturing distribution channels provide increasing opportunities to market American products and creative content around the world.

Yet, on this day we must also recognize that there are those who exploit these same technological advances to profit illegally from the hard work of American authors, artists and inventors through criminal copyright infringement, trademark counterfeiting, trade secret theft, economic espionage, and other intellectual property (IP) offenses.

Unfortunately, criminals rely upon American consumers to buy their counterfeit goods. According to recent research from the National Crime Prevention Council, most Americans do not fully understand the scope or consequences of intellectual property crime and are susceptible to being swayed by the lure of a bargain, especially in these tough economic times.

As chair of the Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property that Attorney General Eric Holder established last year, I know we must continue to work to change the perception that IP crime is risk-free and victimless through aggressive criminal enforcement of laws designed to protect the American public and ensure the quality of products reaching consumers. Intellectual property crime contributes to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, costs our economy billions of dollars annually and exposes Americans to potentially dangerous products, affecting public health and safety and national security.

The task force has sought to strengthen IP protections through an increased focus on domestic and international enforcement and better coordination with our state and local law enforcement partners. We've made significant strides to obtain convictions of online distributors of counterfeit pharmaceuticals; large-scale producers and smugglers of counterfeit goods ranging from luxury items to military-grade computer system hardware; distributors of pirated digital movies and music; and those who have misappropriated highly-valued trade secret information from American corporations.

Though we have accomplished a great deal, we recognize that we cannot rest on what has been done. The attorney general and I are committed to continuing to do more and with your help, we will hold accountable these criminals, protect the American public and safeguard one of America's greatest assets.

The U.S. Government must ensure that intellectual property laws keep pace with changes in technology and the practices of infringers. As part of a process initiated by the IPEC, Federal agencies reviewed existing laws to determine if changes were needed to make intellectual property enforcement more effective. The initial review began shortly after the release of the Joint Strategic Plan and was completed within 120 days. The IPEC will include legislative proposals identified in that review in a White Paper on legislative recommendations that the IPEC expects to submit to Congress in the near future.

"I'm not even slightly interested in saving the industry."

Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter.

The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S. And as long as that's the case, plowing capital into young companies that build their factories elsewhere will continue to yield a bad return in terms of American jobs.

Scaling used to work well in Silicon Valley. Entrepreneurs came up with an invention. Investors gave them money to build their business. If the founders and their investors were lucky, the company grew and had an initial public offering, which brought in money that financed further growth.

Today, manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is about 166,000 -- lower than it was before the first personal computer, the MITS Altair 2800, was assembled in 1975. Meanwhile, a very effective computer-manufacturing industry has emerged in Asia, employing about 1.5 million workers -- factory employees, engineers and managers.

There's more at stake than exported jobs. With some technologies, both scaling and innovation take place overseas. Such is the case with advanced batteries. It has taken years and many false starts, but finally we are about to witness mass- produced electric cars and trucks. They all rely on lithium-ion batteries. What microprocessors are to computing, batteries are to electric vehicles. Unlike with microprocessors, the U.S. share of lithium-ion battery production is tiny.

That's a problem. A new industry needs an effective ecosystem in which technology knowhow accumulates, experience builds on experience, and close relationships develop between supplier and customer. The U.S. lost its lead in batteries 30 years ago when it stopped making consumer-electronics devices. Whoever made batteries then gained the exposure and relationships needed to learn to supply batteries for the more demanding laptop PC market, and after that, for the even more demanding automobile market. U.S. companies didn't participate in the first phase and consequently weren't in the running for all that followed. I doubt they will ever catch up.

Consider this passage by Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder: "The TV manufacturing industry really started here, and at one point employed many workers. But as TV sets became 'just a commodity,' their production moved offshore to locations with much lower wages. And nowadays the number of television sets manufactured in the U.S. is zero. A failure? No, a success."

I disagree. Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs, we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today's "commodity" manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow's emerging industry.

Consider the "Golden Projects," a series of digital initiatives driven by the Chinese government in the late 1980s and 1990s. Beijing was convinced of the importance of electronic networks -- used for transactions, communications and coordination -- in enabling job creation, particularly in the less developed parts of the country. Consequently, the Golden Projects enjoyed priority funding. In time, they contributed to the rapid development of China's information infrastructure and the country's economic growth.

We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars -- fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability -- and stability -- we may have taken for granted.

This provision seeks to ensure that Kenyan communities are protected from exploitation and the loss of elements of their cultural heritage to the wider world. Examples of such loss include the patenting of the kiondo -- a hand-woven bag made from sisal with leather trimmings, originating in Kenya and mostly associated with the Kamba and Kikuyu communities -- by an unknown Japanese entity; and the attempted registration of the word 'kikoi' as a trademark by a company in the United Kingdom. A kikoi is a traditional cloth garment mainly found in East African countries such as Kenya and Tanzania and is used as a wrap by women.

Let me give an example: Japanese haircuts are extremely expensive. Part of the reason is productivity in the Japanese haircut sector is lower. So, an upstart comes up and says 'I'm going to start offering cheaper haircuts.' That's the typical way that competition pushes down prices. If you have cheaper haircuts, more Japanese will go get haircuts, and there will be more activity in the haircutting sector and you will get growth there. Well, the startup provides cheaper haircuts, but the existing barbers get anxious, because they'll have to cut prices and they're perfectly happy where they are with fewer haircuts, but getting more per haircut.

And so the "barber's guild" gets together and says: 'This is terrible. You know, this practice of offering haircuts, we have to find a way to nip it in the bud." And they have a brilliant idea. They say: "Well, offering haircuts without shampoos is un-hygienic. It's a bad idea. So, we're going to mandate that before every haircut, you have to offer a shampoo." Well, the nice thing is that all of the existing barber shops are equipped with basins and so on where you can offer a shampoo. But that new startup, because it's cutting costs and because it's cutting frills, doesn't have a basin where you can have a shampoo.

Well, in one stroke, in requiring a shampoo before a haircut, you've raised the cost of doing business for the startup. You've driven the startup to a corner. And, typically, they can't compete any more. And you've preserved the way of life for the existing barbers. In the process, though, you've far fewer haircuts in Japan than if you'd allowed much more competition.

You can see this play out in many sectors: transport, retail, construction. Where a few incumbents sort of monopolize what's going on and don't allow the kind of growth that would allow Japan domestic sources of growth as distinct from the export-sources of growth, which it typically relies on.