Atkinson, Benedict --- "Preface" [2007] SydUPLawBk 4; in Atkinson, Benedict (ed), "The True History of Copyright - The Australian experience 1905-2005" (Sydney University Press, 2007) xxi

Preface

This book grew out of my wish, when working for the Australian Commonwealth government, to find out whether copyright laws were made to encourage the production of copyright material. According to lobbyist after lobbyist visiting Canberra departmental offices, without the protection of more and more proprietary rights, creators would cease to produce. Without more laws and better enforcement, producers would have no reason to continue production because free riders, or “pirates”, would destroy their margins. Arguments made in favour of more copyright regulation applied equally to other forms of intellectual property protection.

Maximum property rights, according to the lobbyists, provided producers of non-rivalrous goods with the incentive to continue production. However, the incentive theory of intellectual property regulation, accepted uncritically at large as the inspiration for past regulators, seemed to me to be a counterfeit rationale that disguised price discrimination. I wanted to know whether policy makers and legislators really were, as the theory implied, disinterested and farsighted creators of optimal regulation. Did they make copyright laws to encourage efficient production and dissemination?

This book tries to answer that question. Hopefully, it will serve as a reference work for those who debate the purpose and function of copyright laws specifically and intellectual property laws generally. The work is intended to help resolve theoretical questions by supplying a detailed history of copyright law-making in Australia, and (though not comprehensively) the United Kingdom. I intended to make it readable. I tried to bring the actors in the drama of copyright history to life on the page and let their words and actions shape the book. Inevitably my opinions and prejudices influenced the narrative.

My view, arising out of my findings, is that the copyright term is grossly excessive. Possibly the simplest way – in theory – to cure the ills of copyright over-regulation is to cut the term of protection. A short term promotes dissemination and still provides plenty of opportunity for the producer to profit. What is the optimum period? No-one knows and no-one can know. I favour 18 years from the date of production – the age of legal majority. Intrinsically, a copyright work is no more the property of its creator than a child is the property of its parent. Its identity and existence are things distinct. The creator, like the parent, should have legally enforceable parental rights over the work. But 18 years from production (birth), the work (child) should be legally free from its creator’s control.

I don’t wish to obtrude my views on readers. I hope this book allows them to understand how copyright laws were made and to draw some conclusions about how they might be made better in the future.

Benedict Atkinson