Copyright Woes
If I am not, strictly speaking, a libertarian, like James Delingpole, I have a libertarian streak -- which helps explain why I, too, dislike SOPA and PIPA. I would, in fact, be inclined to go even further than the opponents of these two bills and challenge the copyright law that provides their underpinning.
Do not get me wrong. I think that there should be a copyright law. One sign that the Founding Fathers intended that the United States be a commercial republic is the fact that the Framers embedded within the country's constitution a clause stipulating that Congress provide for copyrights and patents -- which is to say, that they endorsed the notion of intellectual property.
But here is the kicker. They did so for only a limited term. Their purpose was to encourage innovation, to reward inventors and authors, and ease their inventions and writings into the public domain with reasonable alacrity -- so that they could be of benefit to all.
The aim of the entertainment industry is to maximize profits, and they have pushed again and again for the extension of copyright. That they have succeeded time and again in the last few decades is a sign of their power. But the truth is that, in repeatedly extending copyright, Congress is denying to the rest of us what is rightly ours: works that, until recently, would have found their way into the public domain. So, if we produce a play at a college, sing a song, post a video, upload a photograph, or quote a snatch of T. S. Eliot's poetry in the process of producing something of our own, we find ourselves in deep trouble.
Consider what it would mean if the pharmaceutical industry were to succeed in getting Congress to extend the patents they own in the same fashion. The principle at stake is the same. Intellectual property was created with an eye to the public good. What does the public gain from extending copyright? And what does it lose? These are the appropriate questions to ask.
If our copyright laws were not already a disgrace, we would not be discussing enormities like SOPA and PIPA.
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Copyright Woes
Paul A. Rahe
Wake up, Nobody, and smell the coffee. No one will confiscate the wealth of Bill Gates, but the copyrights and patents on which it is based will, in fact, lapse -- as copyrights and patents always have. They are legal privileges (temporary monopolies) given for a limited time in order to encourage innovation (which they do).
Question: do software license agreements ever expire? You know those pages of legal mumbo-jumbo you have to accept in order to install a piece of software?
Unless they expire, I'm not sure it will ever be legal to make unauthorized copies of, say, Windows 95.
Jun '10
Re: Copyright Woes
John Walker:
This is scandalous: if some genuine inheritor of the original copyright kept these books in publication I would not dissent, but the fact that an orphaned work is made unavailable to readers is inexcusable.
Think about it: a Tom Swift novel published in 1924 will, if the copyright is owned by a corporation, be under copyright from 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation.
Does this seem reasonable to you?
No, it doesn't.
Another example: abandonware. I'm a big fan of retro video gaming, using emulators to play old arcade games and games written for early home PCs. I'd be happy to pay a modest price to pay them, but few are commercially available. In many cases the companies that wrote them have gone out of business, though the copyrights may have been snatched up at pennies on the dollar at a bankruptcy auction.
I think trademarks lapse after a certain period of time if you don't sell any products under that name. I'd be in favor of a similar provision for copyright: if the work is not offered for sale for 10 years it goes into the public domain.
May '10
Re: Copyright Woes
Economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine deny the claim that intellectual property encourages innovation. Their book length critique is available here for free. I haven't read it.
Oct '11
Re: Copyright Woes
Dr. Rahe, At first I was hesitant to wade into yet another one of these conversations especialy with someone with whom I respect, such as yourself. I'm glad I did however it's very interesting. And while I disagree with some of your arguments I do ultimately agree with much of your conclusion. The most important element of copyright law is that the artist owns and controls the right to his creations within his lifetime.
While I'm a great supporter of copyright laws, I have seen them horribly abused by the wealthy to squash reasonable competition. An illustration of this from my own industry would be DC Comics in the 50's. They would harangue any rival up & coming Superhero publisher with spurious lawsuits. Their argument being that any super-powered man was a clear infringement of Superman. This even resulted in the eventual closing of one of DC's biggest competitors at the time Fawcett Publishing, because of their (in my opinion much better) Captain Marvel character.It's important however to remember that just because a law may at times be abused by a powerful agent, it does not mean that the law is unnecessary.
Re: Copyright Woes
Leveret: What a lot of people appear to be missing is that, unlike title to real property or chattels, a copyright or patent is not a natural right, it is an artifact of the state. Copyright, which originated with the Statute of Anne, has a particularly short history, being barely older than the United States itself.
We protect ownership of real property and chattels because they are scarce. As possession by one precludes possession by another, it is just to prevent unjust deprivation of the property possession by the rightful owner. The same can not be said for ideas. Natural scarcity is limited to the availability of copying technology.
Copyright is, however, justifiable (and is justified) on utilitarian grounds. In a digital age where copying technology becomes ubiquitous, it makes sense as a matter of prudence to reassess the extent to which copyright is granted. · 10 hours ago
You have made my argument in a more succinct fashion than I did. Thank you.
Re: Copyright Woes
N.M. Wiedemer:
While I'm a great supporter of copyright laws, I have seen them horribly abused by the wealthy to squash reasonable competition. An illustration of this from my own industry would be DC Comics in the 50's. They would harangue any rival up & coming Superhero publisher with spurious lawsuits. Their argument being that any super-powered man was a clear infringement of Superman. This even resulted in the eventual closing of one of DC's biggest competitors at the time Fawcett Publishing, because of their (in my opinion much better) Captain Marvel character.It's important however to remember that just because a law may at times be abused by a powerful agent, it does not mean that the law is unnecessary. · 4 hours ago
Fascinating.
Dec '11
Re: Copyright Woes
I am sympathetic to disney a bit.
Disney should be able to be the soul marketer of snow white and seven dwarves, and should reap payment for any broadcast for them. To a certain extent, many of the disney classics have been in near constant production now for a long time, and its not like the movie, film, cartoon space is not competitive.
But I do have a problem with say suing somebody for singing one of the tunes, or maybe performing it. Well thats probably off as well since all the disney classics are literature classics from the public domain.
I am open to the idea that other people shouldnt be able to sell the disney cartoons, but I am not open to the idea that fair use doesnt get broader over time.
I am also sympathetic to DataTreasury, who invented the check scanner and had his ideas ripped off. The story of DataTreasury is squarely in the intent of the constitutional provision.
In any case the laws presented were overbroad and rip for abuse.
Mar '11
Re: Copyright Woes
We have not even waded into the barbaric penalties associated with copyright infringement. It is modern equivalent of cutting off someone’s hand for stealing an apple. The idea that if I forward a song to one person and I get house arrest and probation (happened in Florida to the brother of someone I knew) is cruel.
We don't have these penalties for patent violations, just financial penalties. Why should copyright violations be any different? Unless I knowingly am a major distributor of Copyright material there should never be jail time/probation. It is a misdemeanor not a felony. Also ,the idea I can’t copy a product I legally bought if is has DRM I find repulsive and I almost want be a serial abuser and make it public in protest.
I don’t know why some people can’t get though there thick heads that someone maybe destroying the opportunity for them to get addition cash when I give a copy away is totally different than physically taking something of value. This is closer to stealing time from your employer or a traffic violation not stealing gum or how the penalties are written a car.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 3:22pmRe: Copyright Woes
Brian Clendinen: We don't have these penalties for patent violations, just financial penalties. Why should copyright violations be any different? Unless I knowingly am a major distributor of Copyright material there should never be jail time/probation. It is a misdemeanor not a felony. Also ,the idea I can’t copy a product I legally bought if is has DRM I find repulsive and I almost want be a serial abuser and make it public in protest.
I don’t know why some people can’t get though there thick heads that someone maybe destroying the opportunity for them to get addition cash when I give a copy away is totally different than physically taking something of value. This is closer to stealing time from your employer or a traffic violation not stealing gum or how the penalties are written a car. · 36 minutes ago
Edited 33 minutes ago
People in the entertainment industry like to pose as champions of humanity. When it comes to their own pecuniary interests, however, they tend to act like bloodsuckers.
Re: Copyright Woes
Incidentally, Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) sent me a link to a law-review article he wrote with Robert P. Merges from the law school at Berkeley twelve years ago, which is entitled "The Proper Scope of the Patent and Copyright Power." It can be downloaded without charge (as is only appropriate), and it is thoughtful and well worth reading.
Re: Copyright Woes
Thanks for the information and the link. Has anyone read the piece? I would be instinctively inclined to take the other side. The patent of monopoly was invented in England at the time of Elizabeth and defended in Parliament later by none other than Sir Francis Bacon, and it was intended to harness together science and commerce for the benefit of both. England's commercial success and that of the United States, the other early champion of patent and copyright, would appear to owe something to their support for intellectual property. But perhaps this presumption is wrong. I ask again, "Has anyone read the piece?"
Nov '10
Re: Copyright Woes
Nobody's Perfect: Property is property, whether tangible or intellectual.
Suppose I was in real estate and I spent my life building apartments, but the laws said that after 17 years, I no longer had the exclusive right to those properties - squatters could come and claim them.
How many apartment buildings do you think I would construct?
Fascinating argument. So if I was building apartments that after 17 years ceased to generate me money, I would be inclined to build new ones to replace the ones leaving my control. This benefits me in that I keep making money from from apartments, and in benefits the public in that there is increased housing stock. This is how IP is supposed to work.
Oct '10
Re: Copyright Woes
Nobody's Perfect: Nonsense. Intellectual property is purely a creature of the law. Real estate is not. Furthermore, if I occupy your home, I deny you its use. If I sing your song, I do nothing of the sort.
And no, by singing my song, you don't deny me my use of it. But if you perform it for a paying audience, you deny me my right to share in the proceeds. · 18 hours ago
And your claim on that specific set of words and music denies my right to freedom of speech. Sorry, but IP is not REAL property, and the founders' approach reflects that - copyrights were intended to encourage people to produce easily copied works by letting them alone profit FOR A LIMITED TIME. They weren't intended to give the creators eternal control of those works.
Jan '12
Re: Copyright Woes
Paul A. Rahe
John Walker:
. . . the fact that an orphaned work is made unavailable to readers is inexcusable.
Think about it: a Tom Swift novel published in 1924 will, if the copyright is owned by a corporation, be under copyright from 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation.
Does this seem reasonable to you? · 52 minutes ago
Not to me. You have nicely made my point. What is going on is unconscionable. · 17 hours ago
One important distinction in the way patent law works, is that inventors or the assignees of their invention must pay periodic renewal/maintenance fees. This encourages patent owners to let their invention enter the public domain unless the invention is worth at least a couple thousand dollars per period to maintain. In the US, the fees are due on the 4th, 8th, and 12th year after the patent issues. In many other countries, fees are due every year.
HR2408 from the 109th Congress contemplated a similar policy for copyright. It is one way of solving the orphaned work problem.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 7:05pmApr '11
Re: Copyright Woes
Other absurdities of Intellectual Property
Copyright a meal and sue people for making it
Patent a way of shopping at a store and sue people for using it
Copyright a phase and sue people for uttering it.
Patent a way of studying, a method of dog walking.
It never stops...
Oct '10
Re: Copyright Woes
NormD: Other absurdities of Intellectual Property
Patent a way of studying, a method of dog walking.
One patent was granted for a method of exercising a cat - by shining a laser pointer on the ground, enticing the cat to chase the light.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036
Re: Copyright Woes
May I say, in gratitude, that I have learned a lot more about the details of this problem from reading your comments than anyone has learned from perusing my post. Bless you all.
Nov '10
Re: Copyright Woes
A couple of links I've found enlightening on the subject:
First, the introduction to the Baen Free Library - why Baen Books, one of the more major modern sci-fi publishers, put some of their books online for free, how they feel about online piracy, etc. The stuff on the side bar there is good stuff, especially the Prime Palaver section.
And here's one of those Prime Palavers, Macaulay on Copyright Law. In the 1840's Parliament was having a similar debate to the one in this thread, and Macaulay had some things to say about it.
May '10
Re: Copyright Woes
A copyright exists under the law as soon as it is "fixed"- that is, somehow recorded, be it a manuscript or a videotaped dance.
The question here is whether those who inherently own the copyrights- the creators- have the right to expect the government to enforce it on their behalf.
The Founders believed that it was good public policy for that to be done for a limited time for the purpose of getting the material out for public benefit. Since then, the usual rent-seeking processes have had government legislators receiving the usual forms of payola to have government aid in enforcement for their personal benefit.
It is dismaying to see so many who pretend to be free-market conservatives taking a path of statist convenience in this area. Either they are hypocritical or they do not understand the law and the Constitution.
Mar '11
Re: Copyright Woes
Paul A. Rahe
Thanks for the information and the link. Has anyone read the piece? I would be instinctively inclined to take the other side. The patent of monopoly was invented in England at the time of Elizabeth and defended in Parliament later by none other than Sir Francis Bacon, and it was intended to harness together science and commerce for the benefit of both. England's commercial success and that of the United States, the other early champion of patent and copyright, would appear to owe something to their support for intellectual property. But perhaps this presumption is wrong. I ask again, "Has anyone read the piece?" · Jan. 20 at 7:14am
If you want a detail summary of this argument, over at Econ Talk Boldrin dicusses his agrument from the book for over an hour back in 2009. Him and Russ actually spend quite a while on talking about copyrights. Boldrin thinks a copyright should be only for 10 year.
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 11:38pm