Copyright’s Mercantilist Turn: Do We Need More Copyright or Less?

Glynn S. Lunney, Jr.

Texas A&M University - School of Law

October 8, 2012

Tulane Public Law Research Paper No. 12-20

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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 54

Keywords: copyright, music industry, Napster, consumer, public goods, file sharing

JEL Classification: D72, H41

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: October 15, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Lunney, Jr., Glynn S., Copyright’s Mercantilist Turn: Do We Need More Copyright or Less? (October 8, 2012). Tulane Public Law Research Paper No. 12-20. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2158874 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2158874

Contact Information

Glynn S. Lunney (Contact Author)
Texas A&M University - School of Law ( email )
1515 Commerce St.
Fort Worth, TX 76102
United States
504-865-5987 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,684
Downloads: 372
Download Rank: 53,835
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.531 seconds