As was to be expected, the U.S. Copyright Alliance has approached each of the U.S. Presidential candidates on their approach to copyright protection.

From the CA’s perspective: “The future of our creative output in the United States is at stake in the 2008 presidential election. It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the US economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America’s greatest strengths, its creative community.”

Copyright protection, and intellectual property protection (IPP) in general, has engendered a lengthy debate pitting those who see copyright law as an incentive to innovation (which one cannot deny) against those who see the too broad application of such laws as inhibiting innovation and creativity. Moreover, it pits history versus the future. History insofar as most innovations are shown to be incremental in nature, and in a developmental perspective, usually borrowed from others (i.e. Cabot-Lowell “borrowed” designs for cotton gins while in the UK that once reverse engineered led to the development of the U.S. textile industry, and the decline of the previously famous UK equivalent). And thus a concern for the future focuses on the preservation of industry leadership, and thus necessitates protection.

On a global scale this debate has drawn increasing attention since the 1994 creation of TRIPs, and, since then, the continuous push by the U.S. for TRIPS + IP protection via bilateral trade agreements. But in doing so is the U.S. protecting its own at the expense of global innovation and creativity? Or is it simply giving entrepreneurs around the globe the proper incentives for continued scientific and creative innovation?

This debate is unlikely to be settled anytime soon but as the title of this post indicates I lean hard to the left on issues such as this. While I have no doubts about the need for incentives to encourage continued innovation, the free market should decide who wins, and thus who stays on top, not state-driven protection. Moreover, as this debate increasingly impinges on the rights of developing countries to use generic drugs, protect their agricultural sectors, and ultimately enter the global economy on the same terms as their predecessors did, the need to find a more equitable, and less protectionist-driven agreement, is clear.

Doing so, however, means overcoming the political might of organizations such as the Copyright Alliance, whose members represent $1.38 trillion to the U.S. economy, or more than 11 percent of U.S. GDP…… Hmmm…. uphill battle one might say.