Copyright to Public Domain: A Battle Cry

I am declaring war on copyright.

I declare war not as an attorney, or as a musician and writer, but as a member of society.

The corporate interests, which hold the majority of copyrights in our country, have distorted copyright beyond all constitutional recognition, and replaced it over the years with something that does little to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”

When the public domain is filled with diverse works, our society as a whole benefits. When there is an absence of input, we suffer as a culture and risk irrelevance.  As a result of the modern climate regarding copyright, this is exactly what is happening to our culture.  The very concept of copyright has become distorted over the course of modern history by a narrow interest with little desire to contribute to the cultural pool. This is contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution's copyright clause.

Because the reality of modern copyright is so far beyond the scope of the Constitutional framers' original intent, I believe that the only way to recapture the creative arts for the benefit of society is for artists and writers to voluntarily give up their exclusive rights long enough to put the advocates of ever expanding property rights in intellectual works in an uncompetitive position.

Tall order.

Copyright is not a property right.

It just isn’t. By some interpretations of “securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries…” an argument could be made that this is, in fact, a time-limited property right, but copyright is a bundle of different rights, and as such, is something altogether different.

First, a brief history lesson:

Just after the United States Constitution was ratified, the First Congress got to work on enacting its missives.  In 1790, Congress passed the cleverly titled: “Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies.” This act gave authors exclusive rights to their work (mostly regarding printing and publishing) for fourteen years, with the option to renew that term for another fourteen years.

The point of this limited monopoly was to encourage authors and scientists to do what they did, by offering the promise of an exclusive financial carrot if they came up with something worth buying.  In 1831, Congress extended the term to 28 years, with a fourteen-year extension.  The next big expansion of authors' rights came in 1909, when Congress extended the categories of protected works to all works of authorship, (except choreography, but that’s a different article), and made the term 28 years with a 28-year renewal. If you check out my source for this history, you will see an interesting quote from the congressional record addressing just what they were wrestling with at the time.

Article Author: Rich Frankel

An attorney, musician, and gaming fanatic, Rich Frankel practices law in the greater Philadelphia area to support his music habit.

Visit Rich Frankel's author page — Rich Frankel's Blog