The advent of the Digital Era has fundamentally transformed the landscape of copyright law. As creative works have dematerialized, shifting from physical to virtual forms, the traditional principles of copyright have been challenged. This blog post explores the philosophical, economic, and social justifications of copyright protection in the digital environment, to challenge, if possible, the assumption that the Pay-per-Use scenario made possible by digital locks can replace legislative copyright protection as we know it.
The Philosophical Foundations of Copyright
Copyright law has historically been grounded in philosophical theories that justify the protection of intellectual property. Two key philosophical perspectives are those of John Locke and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Locke's Theory: The Sweat of the Brow
John Locke's theory posits that individuals have a natural right to the fruits of their labor. This concept, known as the "sweat of the brow," has informed the common law understanding of property rights, including intellectual property. Locke's theory supports the exclusive rights of authors but also emphasizes the importance of leaving "enough and as good" for the public. In the digital environment, this means that copyright holders must allow the public to access works within the limits set by copyright law, such as exceptions and fair use.
Hegel's Theory: The Natural Right
Hegel's philosophy views property as an expression of an individual's personality and freedom. In continental Europe, this has led to the concept of "droit d'auteur," which includes both personal and patrimonial rights. Personal rights, such as the right of paternity and integrity, are eternal and non-transferable, while patrimonial rights allow for commercial exploitation. Hegel's theory underscores the importance of protecting the author's independence and free expression, which can be threatened by technological measures like DRM.
Market Failures and Copyright
Economic theories have played a significant role in shaping copyright policies. These theories aim to balance the protection of copyright holders with the promotion of public welfare.
Expressive works are considered "public goods" because they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. This leads to market failures, such as free-riding, where individuals benefit from the work without paying for it. Copyright law addresses these market failures by granting authors exclusive rights, which act as incentives for creation. However, the digital environment has exacerbated issues of non-excludability, making it easier to reproduce and distribute works without authorization.
The Social Justifications of Copyright: Copyright and Learning
Some scholars argue that copyright should directly protect the public's right to access and use creative works, rather than focusing solely on the rights of authors.
Ray Patterson and Stanley Lindberg emphasize the historical purpose of copyright as a means to promote learning. The Statute of Anne, the first copyright legislation, aimed to encourage learning by granting authors monopolistic control over their works for a limited time. This balance between the author's rights and the public's right to access works is crucial for fostering education and cultural development.
The Democratic Paradigm: Balancing Copyright in the Digital Era
Neil Netanel's democratic paradigm argues that copyright should enhance expressive pluralism and diversity by supporting an independent expressive sector. This involves imposing limits on proprietary control over cultural works to ensure that information flows freely and supports democratic discourse. The digital environment, with its potential for widespread access to information, is particularly suited to promoting these democratic goals.
The digital environment has not changed the fundamental principles behind copyright protection. Both Locke's and Hegel's theories recognize the social function of copyright, which remains relevant in the digital age. However, the ease of reproduction and distribution in the digital world has led to increased free-riding behaviors, prompting copyright holders to implement DRM.
DRM and Copyright Limits: Economic vs. Social Goals
To balance the interests of copyright holders and the public, DRM systems must be designed to respect copyright limits and exceptions. This means allowing access to works within the boundaries set by law, such as fair use and other exceptions. Technological solutions should be explored to develop DRM systems that accommodate these legal requirements.
Copyright law aims to correct market imperfections and promote public welfare. While economic theories justify copyright exceptions as responses to market failures, social theories emphasize the direct protection of the public's right to access and use creative works. The digital environment offers opportunities to enhance access to information and culture, which should be leveraged to support democratic discourse and education.
In sum, the Digital Era has brought significant challenges and opportunities for copyright law. While traditional principles of copyright remain relevant, technological measures like DRM must be carefully designed to balance the interests of copyright holders and the public. By respecting copyright limits and promoting access to information, DRM can support the social and economic goals of copyright protection in the digital age.
As we navigate the complexities of copyright in the digital environment, ongoing interdisciplinary research and collaboration between legal scholars, technologists, and policymakers will be essential to developing effective and balanced copyright policies.
From a paper by M. Favale, ‘Death and Resurrection of Copyright, between Law and Technology’, 23(2) Information and Communication Technology Law (2014)
Create Your Own Website With Webador