Latest White House Intellectual Property Strategic Plan Much More Balanced & Reasonable

The White House's "IP Enforcement Coordinator" (IPEC), often referred to as the IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, has released the administration's 2013 Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement, which she's required to put out under the law that created her position, the ProIP Act. When the last report came out, in 2010, we noted that it wasn't as bad as we'd expected, though it still had some serious problems. The latest report is actually a decent improvement on that one, going much further in recognizing some of the problems many of us have with how these issues are handled. Even the announcement about the report is better. In 2010, even though the report is officially named above, the announcement about it called it the Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft. This year, that inflammatory and misleading language is definitely toned down. More importantly, there are a lot of good (and somewhat unexpected) things in the report, which shows that Espinel and her office have been paying attention to the concerns many of us have raised over the years, about how the one-sided focus on "piracy" was misleading and not actually helpful. The full report is worth a read, but let's highlight a few points. The report highlights a key point that we've made over and over again, that the best way to actually deal with "piracy" is through innovation, because when innovation is allow to flourish, solutions present themselves:

With respect to the online environment, the Administration believes that when Americans and people around the world are given real choices between legal and illegal options, the vast majority will want to choose the legal option. Accordingly, we encourage the further development and use of legitimate online services as an important part of an effective approach to reducing infringing activity. Today there are a myriad of legitimate ways to obtain music, video, books, games, software, and other entertainment and educational materials through a wide variety of business models. These include paying per use, paying per copy, and paying a fee for access to a collection of works; allowing customers to pay what they wish; and legitimate content that is available for free, including entertainment industry portals and artists and authors using systems to permit free distribution of their works under conditions that they choose. We believe that legitimate goods, including digital goods, offer clear advantages over infringing ones regardless of price. Use of legitimate goods compensates artists, creators, and those who invest in bringing their works to the public, and provide incentives for future creation and distribution. In addition, legitimate goods are often of higher quality, come with express or implied warranties or guarantees of quality, offer customer services, and do not pose the same risk of viruses or malware. They may also include extra features not available with infringing content. And, increasingly, they may be more convenient and easier to find. We support and will look for additional ways to encourage and facilitate efforts that will help expand the reach of legitimate alternatives to infringement, including through the development of copyright registries and online databases, micro-licensing arrangements, and other market-driven mechanisms to facilitate smooth and efficient access to content. We also encourage the work of the U.S. Copyright Office to update and improve the copyright registration and recordation system in ways that will facilitate licensing and encourage public-private partnerships.

To some extent, this may be overstating the playing field today with regards to where it should be, and fails to recognize the hurdles that are sometimes put up to prevent legal services from becoming truly convenient and powerful. But we have been moving in the right direction, and it's great to see the acknowledgement that innovation is the way forward, and holding back innovation with crazy licensing demands does more harm than good. The paper also focuses heavily on increasing transparency and public outreach, which is important, since this topic has long been dominated by certain special interests:

The Administration strongly supports improved transparency in intellectual property enforcement policy-making and international negotiations.

That's good, but until the USTR actually gets on board with