Re: Greenspan comments on IP

["Intellectual Property Virtual Scholar" <ipscholar@xxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Hyre raises some very important points.  Agree that the Greenspan 
comments are astonishing (just the fact that he put IP high on the 
agenda) and that a close look reveals that he is seeing the issues from 
various perspectives.  The struggle for the balance between private 
protection and user rights is central to IP law.  How one strikes that 
balance makes all the difference.

Still, let's go to a more basic aspect of Greenspan's comments.  He is 
an economist with a great responsibility regarding the national (and 
world) economy.  One can argue endlessly the correct IP balance in that 
arena.  Meanwhile, we in academia (well, I and many others) are 
attempting to influence the national IP agenda, usually with a non-
ecomonic argument.  I may see the value of the work of educators and 
libraries, and may well argue for fair use and other rights of use to 
benefit teaching and research, but I am afraid that our arguments today 
are overwhelmed by the more immediate and pragmatic concerns tied to 
economic growth, jobs, revenue, and the like.  Much of the language of 
IP coming from Washington (and sometimes the courts) is shaped by the 
economic issues without (in my opinion) a different kind of balance--a 
balance with the social issues.

My humble thoughts,

Kenny Crews
http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/ip_scholar_crews.html


----- Original Message -----
From: Max.Hyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, April 14, 2003 4:47 pm
Subject: Greenspan, and WIPO disingenuousness (possible dup?)

>   Gentlefolk:
> 
>   Mr. Kenny Crews noted
> 
> > When someone with the prominence and respect of Greenspan
> > makes the case that stronger IP rights will be critical
> > to economic grownth, our argument about information access,
> > public domain, and the like is diluted if not lost in the
> > process.
> 
>   While I share your astonishment at having Mr. Fed weigh in,
> and your concern about having these issues addressed by movers
> and shakers who may be less than versed in copyright issues,
> I think we can't yet label Mr. Greenspan a liability.  In the
> article, we find these comments:
> 
>    "Are the protections sufficiently broad to
>    encourage innovation but not so broad as to
>    shut down follow-on innovation?"
> 
>    "Whether we protect intellectual property [sic]
>    as an inalienable right or as a privilege
>    vouchsafed by the sovereign, such protection
>    inevitably entails making some choices that
>    have crucial implications[.]"
> 
>   From these, I can only infer that he is aware of the balance
> involved, which means he may be open to our concerns on these
> subjects.  (Though that note about ``inalienable right'' is
> worrisome, as the U.S. Constitution makes it perfectly clear
> that it is to be treated as ``a privilege vouchsafed by the
> sovereign''.)
> 
[snip]
> 
>                         Best wishes,
> 
>                                  Max Hyre