Okay so one evening last week, our Editor Gav A. Ward posted these thoughts on social media in respect of Moore’s Law as applied to the practical lifespan of copyrighted material:-
Does Moore’s Law work in a similar way to the practical application and enforcement of copyright law? Here are my and (mostly) AI’s thoughts on the subject chatgpt.com/share/6792b6… Enjoy, share, comment, pay it forward. Thank you. ^G #copyright #law #intellectualproperty #ailaw
— IPBlawg – IP, Tech & AI Law (@ipblawg.bsky.social) 23 January 2025 at 21:39
[image or embed]
A few drafts later and with the help of ChatGPT there was a “third time lucky” edition draft in the voice of AI Lord Denning on “Copyright’s Practical Lifespan in a World of Accelerating Technological Progress” here (undernoted text version of this thesis – see Undernote 1 below).
Mark A. Lemley, the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology (full bio here), then comments:-
Is Moore’s law of copyright and generative AI that the number of AI copyright suits doubles every 18 months? 😀
Mark A. Lemley, 23 January 2025
Our Gav A. Ward via @ipblawg.bsky.social then replied:- “Like Moore’s Law apparently being slower than expected in the age of AI, it may well be more than double for copyright suits too!” (Gordon Moore’s eponymous law has itself now been broken, for which see Undernote 2).
It was also then shared far and wide by the kind intellectuals of Bluesky including various prominent IP law experts e.g. the people who shared this:-
Genius from a law professor cc @lawprofblawg.bsky.social #copyright #iplitigation #lemleyslaw
— IPBlawg – IP, Tech & AI Law (@ipblawg.bsky.social) 24 January 2025 at 01:30
[image or embed]
So with kind permission from the one and only Mark Lemley, the following can be stated and published:-
What is Lemley’s Law?
The “Moore’s Law” of copyright and generative AI, Lemley’s Law states that the number of AI copyright lawsuits doubles every 18 months. Lemley’s Law is an empirical observation and projection observed by Professor Mark A. Lemley on Bluesky and coined by Gav A. Ward.
Will this hold true? Time will tell. Legal futurists, please take note and let’s see where we are in July 2026, January 2028 and July 2029 respectively. Any kind IP law enthusiasts or researchers who are reading this able to put said dates into the diary to check where we are?! Write to us via https://bsky.app/profile/ipblawg.bsky.social or https://bsky.app/profile/marklemley.bsky.social or see Professor Lemley’s official profile for contact information here.
Undernote 1: Thesis by Gav Ward of IPBlawg and ChatGPT on Copyright’s Practical Lifespan in a World of Accelerating Technological Progress”
Copyright’s Practical Lifespan in a World of Accelerating Technological Progress, By Gav A. Ward + ChatGPT, Jan 2025, 3rd Edition [N.B. Mark had no involvement whatsoever in the production of the above or below other than the eponymous observation and this is subject to the disclaimer below]
The world in which we live is one of constant change. Technology advances at an unrelenting pace, altering the way we create, share, and consume creative works. Yet, the laws of copyright remain tethered to principles that, though once apt, now seem ill-suited to the times. The question arises: has the practical utility of copyright outpaced its statutory lifespan? It is a question of no small moment, for the balance between creators’ rights and the public good lies at the very heart of intellectual property law.
The Diminishing Value of Copyright
Let us consider, first, the purpose for which copyright was conceived. It was a compact, a bargain struck between the creator and society—a grant of limited monopoly to reward labour and ingenuity, in return for works that would enrich the common stock of knowledge. But as the printing press once challenged the scribe, so too does artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the internet challenge the enduring utility of long-term copyright protections.
In days gone by, a novel or a symphony might hold its sway over public imagination for decades. But now, amid the deluge of content that floods our screens daily, the life of a creative work is fleeting. A song may top the charts one week, only to be forgotten the next. And yet, the law affords it a monopoly stretching into decades, long after its practical worth has waned. Such incongruity cries out for reform.
A New Framework for Copyright
I venture to suggest that the principles embodied in Ward’s Law may light the way. Ward’s Law speaks of humanity’s interconnectedness, of first-principle thinking, and of bold yet fair innovation. These principles are as applicable to the law as they are to science, for the law, too, must grow and adapt if it is to serve the society it governs.
First, there must be recognition that copyright law cannot exist in isolation. In this digital age, where borders are but lines upon a map, the regulation of creative works demands a global perspective. Nations must come together to forge a unified copyright system, one that reflects the realities of an interconnected world.
Second, the duration of copyright must be re-examined. Is it just to grant a monopoly of life plus 70 years for all works, when their practical value may endure only months? Might we not adopt a more flexible system, attuned to the nature of the work and its economic life?
Third, we must embrace the tools of the modern age to enforce copyright and ensure fairness. Blockchain could record rights and transactions with unassailable accuracy; artificial intelligence could assist in real-time licensing. Such innovations would serve both creator and consumer, preserving equity while reducing inefficiency.
The Road Ahead
If I may borrow a phrase, the law is not an island entire of itself; it is part of a continent. The law must keep pace with the society it serves, lest it lose both relevance and respect. I commend these thoughts to the attention of jurists, scholars, and lawmakers, that they might build a framework fit for our age.
This is no time for timidity. If we are to preserve the spirit of copyright—the balance of reward and enrichment—then boldness is required. The law must grow, as society grows, to meet the challenges of the future.
Undernote 2 – Gordon Moore’s Law Has Been Broken
As per article by Audrey Woods via MIT CSAIL Alliances called “The Death of Moore’s Law: What it means and what might fill the gap going forward”, we hear the following both on the origins of the eponymous law itself, together with comment on practical consequences of this realization:-
“In 1965, engineer and businessman Gordon Moore observed a trend that would go on to define the unprecedented technological explosion we’ve experienced over the past fifty years. Noting that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years, Moore laid out his eponymous law, which has since become the engine behind the growing computer science industry, making everything we now enjoy—cellphones, high-resolution digital imagery, household robots, computer animation, etc.—possible.
However, Moore’s Law was never meant to last forever. Transistors can only get so small and, eventually, the more permanent laws of physics get in the way. Already transistors can be measured on an atomic scale, with the smallest ones commercially available only 3 nanometers wide, barely wider than a strand of human DNA (2.5nm). While there’s still room to make them smaller (in 2021, IBM announced the successful creation of 2-nanometer chips), such progress has become prohibitively expensive and slow, putting reliable gains into question. And there’s still the physical limitation in that wires can’t be thinner than atoms, at least not with our current understanding of material physics.
THE REALITY: MOORE’S LAW IS OVER
If you ask MIT Professor Charles Leiserson, Moore’s Law has been over since at least 2016. In conversation with CSAIL Alliances, he points out that it took Intel five years to go from 14-nanometer technology (2014) to 10-nanometer technology (2019), rather than the two years Moore’s Law would predict. Although miniaturization is still happening, the Moore’s Law standard of doubling the components on a semiconductor chip every two years has been broken. The implications are far-reaching and, Professor Leiserson admits, concerning, especially with the recent frenzy around generative AI and large language models (LLMs). He says, “the only way to get more computing capacity today is to build bigger, more energy-consuming machines. If we’re in an AI arms race with our adversaries, it could have a dramatically bad impact on climate.” For further reading, see Audrey Woods’ article in full here.
Undernote 3: About the Creator of Lemley’s Law – Mark A. Lemley, the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology.
For more information on Professor Mark A. Lemley’s biography, please click the image above or click here. With great thanks to Mark for his very kind remarks and for taking the time to engage with us via social media.
Cover photo via Pexels by Suzy Hazelwood: https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-view-of-an-old-typewriter-3604571/
Comments on this entry are closed.