Copyright law as corporate welfare
Published August 19, 2004
That's because these perpetual and constantly expanding copyrights absolutely and manifestly do NOT "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." They absolutely hinder it, by restricting EVERYONE'S freedom in the name of speech, of the press, of commerce, of creative expansion and expression.
Indeed, the heavyhanded copyright laws now sound unconstitutional to me, MUCH less some nonsense Induce Act. I tend to be skeptical of judicial activism, so I might go lightly on this point. However, I fail to see how 75 years after the death of the author, and the promise of further decades of extensions long before that constitute "limited times."
In short, then, 20 or 30 years should be the maximum of copyright protection. Further, I would presume that this means mostly just a monopoly in the commercial exploitation of a work. Common non-commerical P2P swapping of mp3 files, for example, should arguably be protected fair use — though there's room to negotiate the legitimate concerns created by these emerging technologies.
However, I can understand why copyright holders might be legitimately concerned about some of this, though it has not demonstrably hurt them so far, despite how badly they've played these technologies. Considering this, and also THEIR presumed freedom, it's fair enough that they would try to CREATE Digital Rights Management technologies (DRM), such as the copy protections put into commercial DVDs.
As a consumer, I tend to be highly skeptical of these things, but then I have the right not to buy them. Done right though, such things as DRM or the empty decoy mp3 files the industry pushes into the P2P networks might at least slow down the wholesale copying of new material. Or it might just anger consumers. At least these things constitute, as it were, fair fighting — as opposed to getting Congress to force people to pay them tribute under threat of arrest and ruination.
By rights, the Beatles and Ayn Rand and James Joyce and Charlie Chaplin should all long since be public domain. Eleanor Rigby and Father Mackenzie and Mickey should all be getting re-invented in hundreds of permutations in movies and short stories and songs, much as are Tom Sawyer and Hamlet and Moses. That's liberty, and that's certainly the greater public good.
- Copyright law as corporate welfare
- Published: August 19, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Internet
- Writer: Al Barger
- Al Barger's BC Writer page
- Al Barger's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
It's interesting how "Information wants to be free" has been corrupted from its original use and now, to many, means that intellectual property is (and should be) up for grabs.
The original use was in a different sense and included a balancing concept, Siamese twins that were not meant to be separated. Here's what Stewart Brand, the originator, tells us about it (I've underlined the other twins):
In fall 1984, at the first Hackers' Conference, I said in one discussion session: "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other." That was printed in a report/transcript from the conference in the May 1985 *Whole Earth Review*, p. 49.
In 'The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT', ISBN 0140097015, published by Viking Penguin in 1987, on p. 202 is a section which begins: "Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine---too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better." [Roger Clarke]
The Media Lab definitely foresaw today's situation.
I don't think your characterization of Orrin Hatch is too far off the mark. Here he's hiding his real intent behind a defense against child pornography. To me, that's at least as reprehensible as stealing songs through Kazaa.
Your defense of the latter practice that nothing has been physically taken is sophistry worthy of a neocon, or a president defending his sexual practices.
The value of music has always been the hearing of it. It's up to the creator to decide whether you should get to hear it free or not. The length of time in which that control should exercisable is a tougher issue.
I agree with the founding fathers that copyrights are a good thing, but I also agree with Al that perpetual copyrights aren't.
In a small way, I've been a "creator." My most profitable creation was a software program that sold over 250,000 copies. I got royalties on each and every copy and I loved it.
But I don't like what Congress persists in doing by continually lengthening the term for copyrights.
Thinking about the passage in the constitution, I'd say that a photographer or a composer or a programmer or other individual should probably be limited to his lifetime at most. I can also see a case for a shorter term such as 20 years, so won't argue about that. As Al said, the intent was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Once I'm dead, I'm not going to be doing much creating so encouragement isn't going to have much effect on me, and how much more encouraging is a lifetime of royalties compared to 20 or 30 years of the same?
I'm pretty clear on what I think about P2P and music: if payment was expected for your downloads by a copyright holder, you should stop reading this and erase your drives now or write out a check and get it the mail. I'll wait. If the musicians want you to have it free, they can just upload it and shout: "Come and get it." If they didn't do that, leave it alone.
Once corporations get into the pictures, things get muzzier for me, partly because in this country they're essentially immortal.
I believe that the creator should have the right to transfer the copyright because the payments s/he gets from this could be very encouraging (I did that with my software so I'm speaking from experience).
However, the same term limits should apply and the copyright should definitely expire when the creator dies, although we probably would need a minimum term of 20 or so years death or no death (I don't want to encourage mysterious early deaths and disappearances).
Music is fine for discussion, but it's the drug companies that really bug me.
For some reason they seem to have a lock on Congress:
One reason the industry does so well in the capital is its potent lobby. It maintains more than 600 lobbyistsâ€"more than one for every member of Congress. It spent $435 million to influence Washington from 1996 to 2003 and handed out $57.9 million in contributions from 1991 to 2002, according to Common Cause. [Why we pay so much for drugs Time Magazine story new window]So Congress gives them longer and longer copyright terms.
I think that stifles innovation. If they have a cash cow drug and are able to keep a lock on it, they don't have as much pressure to come up with new drugs. They already get a 35% tax break on research, so putting a real limit rather than the perpetually-moving term we have now strikes me as reasonable.
Then there's Mickey Mouse, and he gives me a real problem - I can't decide what should be done here.
Would giving away exclusive rights to Mickey (or Barbie or whatever) help or hurt?
What do you think?
"The value of music has always been the hearing of it. It's up to the creator to decide whether you should get to hear it free or not. The length of time in which that control should exercisable is a tougher issue."
I have a vcr, and several blank tapes. Should it be illegal for me to flip over to MTV and "copy" a music video for my own private use? How about if I invite a friend ot two over to watch/listen to it with me? After all, I haven't really paid anything for it...
(BTW, incredibly stupid question, I'm sure, but do any DVD players have "record" capacity? The two cheap pieces of shit I own don't, but that doesn't mean NONE are made with such capacity. And yes, I know you can "burn" such things on computer. But I'm only talking about actual DVD players here...)
I was hoping for some constructive discussion, RJ, so why don't you answer your questions for me?
Thanks.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18825)
Wait a minute Al. You mean, you are against the corporation position? I thought that you were a conservative, and that conservatives always champion corporations?
Oh, the Libertarian position is not the conservative position? They aren't one and the same? That's tricky, because it's so much easier to blindly lump Libertarians in with conservatives. Bummer.