Copyright is key to innovation, and getting rid of it would be bad.

Bartlett Cleland, “Copyright and Innovation? No. Copyright IS innovation.,” Institute for Policy Innovation, 01-30-2013, https://www.ipi.org/policy_blog/detail/copyright-and-innovation-no-copyright-is-innovation

Timothy H. Lee's article got me thinking about his comments that opponents to copyright make that claim that innovation has been stifled. His historical perspective certainly makes that a tough claim for those who would erode or erase all copyright protections. He goes on to provide an excellent argument about the similarities of intellectual and real property. As I have noted before, there are differences but there are also many similarities. Those who oppose copyright protection only want to focus on one side of the balance sheet, Mr. Lee provides the necessary and intellectually honest other side.

But regarding his first argument, I think though that Mr. Lee does not go far enough when it comes to defending against the assertion (or as Mr. Lee puts it "The claim doesn’t withstand prima facie scrutiny") that somehow copyright has hampered innovation. Copyright does not stand opposed to innovation, and doesn't even stand alongside innovation. Rather, appropriate copyright protections are part of a dynamic innovation landscape.

Those opposed to copyright, or more generally to all intellectual property protections, would most certainly come out of their seats to oppose this argument. Their immediate rebuttal—you cannot prove that any innovation happened because of copyright protections. That is a nice argument but also a red herring, meaning that it doesn't matter if one can prove that some critical mass innovation did spring forth only because of copyright. Those who make the argument lack an appreciation that innovation as often as not springs from chaos, from a soup of the right elements.

Copyright is part of the innovation soup. To the extent that copyright encourages someone to sing or write or code then it has worked—even if it only contributes some small percentage of the motivation. That there is a means for an author to protect their works if they so chose is the point. Authors such as James Patterson or Tom Clancy have been leveraging the characters and "worlds" they created to become an industry unto themselves, inviting other authors to write books under their brand and involving characters they created which are protected by copyright.

Those who would do away with current and historical economic incentives bear the burden of proving empirically that no harm would come to our innovation engine from the removal of such benefits. If the correct recipe for innovation were easy then every country would sport a Silicon Valley, a Hollywood, a New York City, and a Nashville or Austin. Obviously they do not even though they continue to try. Several ingredients are necessary but the right mix is tougher. To tamper with observed success is reckless. There are those who would blindly bully forward declaring that they know the right mix, the real reason, that every innovator innovates. The claim is balderdash.