There's no such thing as intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly that the public gives to an author in exchange for an author enriching the public with his works. If the public is never to enjoy the full enrichment that comes from the work (such as being able to use it for the basis of other stories, the way we do with Shakespeare), then the intent of copyright is being perverted.
"No one except perhaps Hamilton or Franklin might have imagined that services and intellectual property would become primary fields of endeavor and the chief engines of the economy."
What bullshit. Ideas already were the "chief engines" in their time, a somewhat famous period called the "Industrial Revolution". The crown forbade the transfer of manufacturing knowledge, textile mill plans, etc, on pain of death. The Colonies were forced to sell raw materials cheap and buy manufactured goods dear.
The author also conflates the problem of publishing cartels with copyright, jangling an image of the poor starving writer brutalized by the pinko copyleft junta. He gives it away: the author gets 10% of sales while the publisher gets 50%. Who, then, is to benefit most from unlimited copyright? Why should we worry about the yachts of the writer's grandchildren when the writer is being robbed blind in his own lifetime?
I was thinking along the same lines. The whole argument reads like one of those anti-piracy commercials we see before movie previews... think of the poor starving artist! (Don't think about the reason he is starving, which is that the publishers/labels/studios reap most of the profits for themselves.)
He also seems to think that copyright only applies to the world of books. This is probably natural because the guy is an author, but copyright has been expanded to include so much that infinite copyright terms would grant dynastic control of almost all media and culture.
I would like to point out however that the point is moot. Every time Disney comes close to letting Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain, they successfully lobby congress for an extension to copyright terms. So, as far as we can tell, the terms are already infinite, because I don't see Congress saying no anytime soon.
- Once a copyright expires, the physical medium encoding the work (book, CD, etc...) becomes a commodity, which anyone can replicate. Under good competition, the profit from selling those should be very small. Even moreso in the digital age.
- The article complains a lot that everything is inherited, except IP protection. One can look at it in the opposite direction: these days, many rich people are coming out against inherited wealth. Taxing it to a larger extent than normal would make sense, from a mechanism design point of view. My guess is that this cannot be done effectively; people would just start giving away their property to their children before dying, escaping the "death tax". Copyrights are easier to take away, because they have a natural owner.
Good points both. Arguments like the article's sound plausible because copyright law is currently weirdly implemented. What is so special about the creator's death? Assign copyright for a fixed duration from publication, just like patents.
Copyrights and patents don't exist to protect their inventor. They provide an incentive for people to create IP, which is beneficial to society. Extending IP rights tends to increase the incentive. On the other hand, works in the public domain are sources of wealth in their own right (esp. patents). Thus, there is a critical amount of protection X, where society is best served. X varies with the field, technological status, and other things.
The inventor's well-being is only a side-effect of this optimization problem. The same argument applies against claims that taxes "steal" from people. It's all just a big incentive structure. Nothing personal.
Extending IP rights tends to increase the incentive.
Maybe, although I'd argue that shortening "IP" rights creatives more incentive. If your cash cow only lives for so long, you might be more motivated to make more cows.
Also, incentive for the author only exists when the copyright/patent is held by the author, and while he's alive. Our copyright laws allow copyrights to be "purchased" and bequeathed (no such allowance in the consitution), and held long after the author's death. Charles Schultz is never going to create a new Snoopy. Why is his copyright still valid?
You're right: complex problem. My real point is that the authors of the Constitution thought they'd settled it. The 1st ammendment says that freedom of expression cannot be denied. Copyright law says "ok, temporarily, this expressed idea is off the table, so that the author will make more."
Schultz could sell his copyright for more money, sure. But how does that benefit anyone else? He was already given the right to publicize Snoopy -- a right that not all societies enjoy. In exchange, he would have to realize that his monopoly was short-lived.
The way Jefferson saw it, once an idea is expressed, it's not just yours anymore -- it's in my head, too. Obviously you don't own what's in my head. So with copyright laws, we're saying that the 1st ammendment does not apply, temporarily: you may know the song, but you can't sing it, even though we've now taken away your freedom of expression. That can only be short-lived, or we may as well withdraw the 1st ammendment. And it's not as if Schultz created Snoopy in a vacuum; he was influenced by other comic strip artists, and he certainly did not invent the form. Did he owe them money? Did he owe society money for allowing him to blast his drawings out to us without explicit permission?
(I've always wanted to say something to Lars from Metallica. During the Napster thing, he said, "They didn't even ask us. They just took our songs." To which I'd say, "yeah, Lars, but you never even asked me before you made your crap songs impossible for me to avoid. If I leave my house, there's your shitty music. And you never even asked." There are two sides to this coin, and it's remarkably convenient for copyright "owners" to forget that.)
Well, if you have a big company where the main asset is some copyrighted material and the creator suddenly dies, that company might suddenly lose a lot of revenue possibly affecting the life of a large number of people. (Of course, you might say, that's business and it just means that another large number of people now have a new business opportunity.)
I think the current life+70 years is wrong, but I think the expiry should be predictable some time in advance. Like X years from the time of creation.
You've got to be kidding. "No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property"? The writer has put hardly any thought into it at all. There's no insight here; just shallow, selfish thinking.
It's amazing how poorly people can use reason. The author is a good example. He feels that if he can make an analogy -- however strained it might be -- that he has won his point.
Obviously he's wrong. An idea is not physical property. He gives a passing nod to the founding fathers but fails to mention any part of the debate that led to the copyright/patent clause. Jefferson, for one, says that it is ridiculous to treat an idea as if it existed in the physical world. That's why they settled for "limited monopoly" -- because they recognized that you can only live in a fantasy world for so long.
I guess if I had to answer this guy directly -- the question posed in his headline -- I might say:
Great ideas do not live forever. They need to evolve and have the benefit of other minds to hack at them, to improve them. Ask Walt Disney. He took the ideas in the stories of the Brothers Grimm -- horrifying stories, if you've ever read them -- and made them new, as well as palatable. Every idea has its time, and its author does deserve a short monopoly as a congratulations. Then it's others' turn. And in my book, that limited time is very, very short: perhaps five years, perhaps even less.
Ideas benefit from hacking. If we want to stifle creativity and innovation, we should freeze them in time with laws. If our aim is the opposite, then we should consider giving them lives of their own. You're right: ideas live. But things can only live if you are willing to give them freedom.
