While AIM does devote at least one chapter to a discussion of copyright, the authors present their case based upon empirical data associated with inventions and patents. I am not at all surprised by this in view of fundamental differences that exist between the patent and copyright regimes, not only because of the nature of rights granted, but also the disparity between enforcement mechanisms. By the way, I have read AIM since I do read and try to understand the references you cite in your numerous articles. In this regard I have found your site quite helpful to identify work by others that question conventional wisdom.

I have long followed Lessig’s work, as well as, inter alia, that of Patry and Nimmer (both father and son). I am not familiar with the work of the others you mention. Lessig being what I would term the “advocate” of the group {Patry to some extent, but much of his and the Nimmers’ work is directed to treatises), his work suffers from largely consisting of the historical development of copyright law, statutory provisions, and caselaw decisions. He writes as is typical of a lawyer, but without empirical data his advocary falls well short of the mark.

While it seems you believe otherwise, I am not an “IP” apologist who holds as a basic tenent that the success of our economy is causally related and dependent upon the existence of patent and copyright law. Quite the contrary. For example, long ago I noted that very little of the innovation to which patent laws could apply actually enters into the “patent system”. Of course, it would be an entirely different discussion explaining why I believe this is so based upon my experience over a wide diversity of industries. Recall, I have practiced this aspect of IP law to a significant degree in both private law and in-house settings.

In view of the foregoing, and until such time as empirical data is presented concerning the economic impact of copyright law, I continue to hew to the view that “informing” Congress via AIM would almost certainly be an exercise in futility…what I term “swimming up a waterfall”. Why? Because the RIAA/MPA/etc. enjoy

two distinct advantages. First, they have incredibly effective lobbies with ready access to the members of Congress and the Executive branch. Second, in the legislative debate it is their “numbers” that are on the table and that frame all discussions. To effectively counter their numbers counter-groups must effectively present their own numbers and the methodology used, something that to date has been virtually non-existent.

The development of copyright law in large measure depends upon the effective presentation of a “business case”, and I am not at all sanguine this is something for which lawyers, and particularly those in academia, are well suited. Talk “business” and Congress may listen. Talk law and congressional eyeballs will “cage in the full upright position” (an aircraft term pertaining the HSIs).