American copyright law is MILES out of whack. The entertainment corporations have taken over the law so completely as to not just have copyrights effectively in perpetuity, but to expand the privileges of copyright so much as to effectively destroy any concept of fair use.
Copyrights are restrictions on everyone else's freedom in thousands of ways in the name of ONE person or company. Information wants to be free. It's natural that it flows and mingles and gets put back and forward in different forms.
How many truly ORIGINAL thoughts do YOU get? Most human knowledge comes built and expanded from pieces of the old. I have my own minor additions to thoughts on copyright laws, and my own writing style, but I, Al Barger, did not conjure up most of the underlying ideas or even examples in this very essay just out of the blue. I've picked them up from a hundred different books, web columns, tv shows and conversations. Am I doing something bad, or violating the "intellectual property" of others?
European classical composers, for example, would take a bit of some folk song and spin off in a different direction to create something new. A songwriter today quotes a line out of a 70 year old song though, and he's asking to get sued for a million dollars.
It's normal creative practice to take a theme or character or situation from Shakespeare, and with some new creative input it becomes West Side Story — and thousands of others.
The entertainment corporations sway public opinion by appeals to "intellectual property rights." It's THEIR property, and people are just trying to "steal" it. We have to respect people's property rights.
People are being fooled by a bit of bogus verbal hocus pocus, though. It's COPYright, not PROPERTY right. Calling them "property rights" is merely a metaphor, a verbal sleight of hand, not a reflection of any corporeal reality. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTELECTUAL PROPERTY. When I go on P2P and download some Elvis Costello song, I haven't TAKEN anything. Go back to the warehouse at Sam Goody's and count your inventory- it's all there.
Lengthy and restrictive copyright law hurts individuals and the whole of society in thousands of ways, big and small. It's not just kids downloading Britney Spears, but writers and creators and businesses.
Old movies that should be available cheap as public domain are not available at all. Disney and other studios have cut out things that they think will hurt their corporate image. Try finding a copy of Song of the South, or the Popeye cartoon "You're a Sap, Mr Jap." These should be part of the public record.
Article comments
1 - Mike Kole
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.
2 - Hal Pawluk
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):
The Media Lab definitely foresaw today's situation.
3 - Hal Pawluk
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.
4 - Hal Pawluk
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).
5 - Hal Pawluk
Music is fine for discussion, but it's the drug companies that really bug me.
So Congress gives them longer and longer copyright terms.For some reason they seem to have a lock on Congress:
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?
6 - RJ
"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...)
7 - Hal Pawluk
I was hoping for some constructive discussion, RJ, so why don't you answer your questions for me?
Thanks.