IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/stanec/00016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Digital Technology Boomerang: New Intellectual Property Rights Threaten Global "Open Science"

Author

Listed:
  • Paul A. David

Abstract

October 2000 There is a serious threat that ill-considered government support for expanding legal means of controlling access to information for the purpose of extracting private economic rents is resulting in the "over-fencing of the public knowledge commons" in science and engineering. Such a new "tragedy of the commons" would bring adverse long-run consequences for future welfare gains through technological progress, and re-distributional effects further disadvantaging the present economically less advanced countries of the world. Radical legal innovations in intellectual property protection that seriously jeopardize the effective conduct of open, collaborative science have been introduced by the little noticed European Database Directive of March 1996. This initiative forms an emblematic and substantively significant aspect of the broader set of transformations in intellectual property rights institutions that have been initiated in response to the economic ramifications of rapid progress in digital information technologies. The EC Directive poses numerous contentious issues in law and economics that will create ambiguities for business and non-profit activities in this area for years to come. The terms on which those issues are resolved will materially affect the costs and organizational feasibility of scientific projects that are of global reach and importance, especially those that depend heavily upon the collection, management and analysis of large volumes of observational data that cannot be regenerated. This paper sets out the economic case for the effectiveness of open, collaborative research, and the forces behind the recent, countervailing rush to strengthen and expand the scope of intellectual property rights protection. Focusing upon innovations in copyright law and the sui generis protection of hitherto unprotected content, it documents the genesis and analyzes the economic implications of the EC's Database Directive, and related legislative proposals (H.R. 3125, H.R. 354 and H.R. 1858) in the US. Several modest remedial proposals are advanced to mitigate the adverse impact of "the digital technology boomerang" upon open science. Keywords: intellectual property rights, copyright, sui generis protection of expressive material, economics of information-goods, open science, "fair use," scientific databases. JEL Classification: H4, K39, O31, O34

Suggested Citation

  • Paul A. David, 2000. "The Digital Technology Boomerang: New Intellectual Property Rights Threaten Global "Open Science"," Working Papers 00016, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:stanec:00016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-econ.stanford.edu/faculty/workp/swp00016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bakos, Yannis & Brynjolfsson, Erik & Lichtman, Douglas, 1999. "Shared Information Goods," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 117-155, April.
    2. Reichman, Jerome H, 1998. "Securing Compliance with the Trips Agreement after US v India," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 585-601, December.
    3. Besen, Stanley M., 1986. "Private copying, reproduction costs, and the supply of intellectual property," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 5-22.
    4. Louise C. Keely, 2000. "Pathway From Poverty? Intellectual Property And Developing Countries," CEP Reports 14, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Liebowitz, S J, 1985. "Copying and Indirect Appropriability: Photocopying of Journals," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 945-957, October.
    6. David, Paul A, 1998. "Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of "Open Science" Institutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 15-21, May.
    7. Partha Dasgupta & Paul A. David, 1987. "Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, chapter 16, pages 519-542, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Besen, Stanley M & Kirby, Sheila Nataraj, 1989. "Private Copying, Appropriability, and Optimal Copying Royalties," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(2), pages 255-280, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mario Calderini & Chiara Franzoni, 2004. "Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications," KITeS Working Papers 162, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Oct 2004.
    2. Giovanni B. Ramello, 2005. "Pelle sub agnina latitat mens saepe lupina: copyright in the marketplace," Chapters, in: Alain Marciano & Jean-Michel Josselin (ed.), Law and the State, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. O'Mahoney, Siobhán & Ferraro, Fabrizio, 2004. "Managing the boundary of an 'open' project," IESE Research Papers D/537, IESE Business School.
    4. Maurice Cassier & Dominique Foray, 2001. "Économie de la connaissance : le rôle des consortiums de haute technologie dans la production d'un bien public," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 150(4), pages 107-122.
    5. Mario Calderini & Chiara Franzoni & Andrea Vezzulli, 2005. "If Star Scientist do no Patent: an Event History Analysis of Scientific Eminence and the Decision to Patent in the Academic World," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1004, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David, Paul A., 2001. "Tragedy of the Public Knowledge 'Commons'? Global Science, Intellectual Property and the Digital Technology Boomerang," Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Yoon, Kiho, 2002. "The optimal level of copyright protection," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 327-348, September.
    3. Gürtler, Oliver, 2006. "Software Piracy in the Video Game Market," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 20/2006, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    4. Paul A. David, 2005. "Can ‘Open Science’ be Protected from the Evolving Regime of IPR Protections?," Industrial Organization 0502010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Gürtler, Oliver, 2005. "On Strategic Enabling of Product Piracy in the Market for Video Games," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 36/2005, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    6. Hal R. Varian, 2005. "Copying and Copyright," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 121-138, Spring.
    7. Holm, Håkan, 2000. "The Computer Generation's Willingness to Pay for Originals when Pirates are Present – A CV study," Working Papers 2000:9, Lund University, Department of Economics, revised 16 Mar 2001.
    8. Martin Peitz & Patrick Waelbroeck, 2005. "An Economist's Guide to Digital Music," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 51(2-3), pages 359-428.
    9. Cho, Won-Young & Ahn, Byong-Hun, 2010. "Versioning of information goods under the threat of piracy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 332-340, December.
    10. David Blackburn, 2002. "Complementarities and network externalities in casually copied goods," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 29(1 Year 20), pages 71-88, June.
    11. Yeh-ning Chen & Ivan Png, 2003. "Information Goods Pricing and Copyright Enforcement: Welfare Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 107-123, March.
    12. Rob, Rafael & Waldfogel, Joel, 2006. "Piracy on the High C's: Music Downloading, Sales Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 29-62, April.
    13. Rick Harbaugh & Rahul Khemka, 2010. "Does Copyright Enforcement Encourage Piracy?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 306-323, June.
    14. Kinokuni, Hiroshi, 2005. "Compensation for copying and bargaining," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 349-364, July.
    15. David Waterman & Sung Ji & Laura Rochet, 2007. "Enforcement and Control of Piracy, Copying, and Sharing in the Movie Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 30(4), pages 255-289, June.
    16. Xinyu Hua & Kathryn E. Spier, 2023. "Settling Lawsuits With Pirates," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(2), pages 543-575, May.
    17. Patrick Legros, 2005. "Art and the Internet: Blessing the Curse?," Levine's Bibliography 666156000000000502, UCLA Department of Economics.
    18. Yooki Park & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2004. "Digital Rights Management and the Pricing of Digital Products," Working Papers 04-09, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    19. Liang Guo & Xiangyi Meng, 2015. "Digital Content Provision and Optimal Copyright Protection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1183-1196, May.
    20. Tunay I. Tunca & Qiong Wu, 2013. "Fighting Fire with Fire: Commercial Piracy and the Role of File Sharing on Copyright Protection Policy for Digital Goods," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 436-453, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • K39 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Other
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:stanec:00016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/destaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.