Normally, increasing weath and encouraging the creation of IP should be good outcomes. Looking to the example of the Copyright Extension Act, I don't doubt the extension increased the wealth of current IP holders. However, that wealth overall was increased doesn't seem to necessarily follow. Many business opportunities which would have been enabled by not extending copyright were quashed. Additionaly, the effect to encourage new IP seems rather small.
A fundamental tenet of lassaiz faire capitalism is that what is good for business is good for society. Now, there are a host of obvious problems with that, but the underlying principle holds as far as any economic study you can name is concerned.
While it is possible that societal wealth would increase faster with fewer IP protections- between modern style protections and the "self-help" that ruled before- it hasn't been shown to work out in any of the (admittedly) very few countries in which such attempts have been made. Even China has had to use Western-style IP protection to help out their own IP creators...while turning a blind eye towards infringements against foreign IP holders. The Chinese and
only the Chinese are better off.
Does the law or policy increase the wealth of a few (e.g., current copyright holders), or of many (new potential IP creators, business partners of the IP creators)? Does the law or policy create wealth by increasing prices or by creating more product and more sales?
The economic data of the effects of modern IP protection are quite clear: it builds the wealth of IP creators; it builds the wealth of necessary partners in delivering the product to market; it expands the job market. How it does so- by increased prices or increased sales- varies from product to product.
Because of those protections, the world has seen an expansion in IP creation that has only accelerated. Again, looking at China: their protective regime is modeled after the West, at least in structure. They just enforce it selectively. But the existence of those laws has resulted in an explosion in the Chinese economy.
Does the law or policy effect a net increate in IP? There are at least these contrary trends which must be taken into account: Restrictions to existing IP. Refocusing resources on enforcement as opposed to IP creation. (This includes loss of utility due to protection mechanisms.) Reduction in availability due to price increases.
Again, there is no economic data that indicates anything but a boom in IP in those countries adopting modern Western-style IP laws.
Enforcement expenditures only exist because people don't respect the rules of society, and are a cost for any business. The number one cost for retailers combatting "shrinkage"- "theft" to Joe Public- is monitoring employees.
As for price increases affecting availability? That's capitalism. Just because something is on the market doesn't mean I have a right to own it, just the option of meeting the seller's asking price. I'd love to own a Somogyi acoustic guitar, but I don't have the $20,000 on hand to buy a basic, no-frills one, much less one with any of the available options. Until I make considerably more money, I'll have to satisfy myself with lesser (though still nice) guitars that are out there.
Does the law or policy encourage the use of new ideas, or is there a stifling effect?
There will always be a stifling effect with any IP protection- indeed, the protection of any property right. The real question is which is greater- the benefit or the stifling?
My neighbor might be better off if he could plant zucchini on my lawn, but my property rights "stifle" his ability to do so. Society has deemed that there is no overwhelming need to encourage private zucchini gardens.
OTOH, if oil were found below my land, its a different story. If it were found to be a significant amount, there WILL be an incursion onto my land by the oil company, either above or below ground, or possibly both. And, depending on what state I'm in (laws vary) and the precise nature of what my deed of sale said when I purchased the land, I may not have much say in the matter. I might not even get an oil & gas royalty. And that might even result in my being effectively evicted from my land as the noisy, smelly, dangerous oil derrick goes up in my back yard.
