Researching an Economic Perspective of Copyright

When viewing the subject matter from two utilitarianism approaches and the Supreme Court decisions, compulsory copyright license does not prejudice the moral of the author. The reason for this is rooted in the essence of the copyright law itself, as the primary goal of it is to stimulate creation of scientific works and art. Consequently, intrusion of the rights of the copyright owner should be viewed in the first place from an economic perspective rather then that of the personal benefits. As such, the issue is then brought down to the two dominant approaches – incentive maximization and neo-classicism. While the first one favours issuance of the compulsory copyright as long as an incentive for creation is provided, under neo-classicism, access to the public should be limited in order to let the market adjust the value by itself and in such way sustain the incentive for further creation. Consequently, there is no intrusion of the moral rights of the author as long as the incentive is provided.

Therefore, whether moral rights are intruded becomes a factor of whether adoption of a compulsory copyright license undermines or stimulates an incentive for creation and the way it impacts the free market competition. As such, whether moral rights are intruded or not would be determined in every specific case by the degree of incentives from the side of creators in the given field where compulsory copyright license was issued. Therefore, it impossible to provide a single solution to the subject matter discussed, but rather every specific case of the potential intrusion should be specifically discussed in order to evaluate the degree to which incentive in a given market was influenced. Finally, it should be further pointed out that under the approaches undertaken by the Supreme Court, the decision on intrusion or non-intrusion of the moral rights should be regarded from a solely economic perspective.

Jennifer Burns

Post Author: mark

Leave a Reply