Comments on: The Case Against Perpetual Copyrights

By: Gunnar

Gunnar — Mon, 21 May 2007 17:06:16 +0000

You guys all have it wrong. Doug, you miss a very important distinction: patents vs copyright. Patents, in fact, are govt granted monopolies. However, copyrights are intellectual property. Copyrights do not protect ideas, only the expression of ideas. That expression is true property. This inalienable right does not exist, merely because the constitution says so, but because they are inherent in reality.

There is, and there should be, a genuine sense of injustice when a copyright is violated. Just imagine if thousands of groups released their versions of “Hey Jude”, shortly after Paul wrote it, and paid nothing to him. It’s an injustice.

It’s totally illogical to assume that the right is merely derived from government, simply because it’s mentioned in the constitution. So is the right to life, liberty and property. A human has the right to life. As such, a human being has the right to his own labor, and the expression of ideas is one such labor. How can one own the tree, and not own the fruits of that tree?

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 21 May 2007 07:22:54 +0000

Peter,

I feel, from your comment, that you misunderstood what Doug was trying to say (This being my possible misunderstanding – That the “author” you speak of is Doug).

His use of the words Public Domain seem to imply that the public is aware of the idea, not Public Domain as is so oft used in Copyright law.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 21 May 2007 05:16:15 +0000

The author mischaracterizes the Jefferson quote. It is meant to explain how one cannot copyright or patent an idea in the first place, not how a copyrighted idea can become public domain. In fact, Mr. Helprin got it right when delineating between ideas and art – art, an expression fixed in a tangible medium, is copyrightable, while facts and ideas alone are not.

I do not agree with Mr. Helprin’s ideas, however. The perpetual copyright is not only unconstitutional, but fails to recognize that the limit on the copyright term can foster creativity as well – perhaps now more than ever. Yet it is now (or in 1998) when the Feds extend the term. Ugh.

By: Investment Property » Investment Property May 20, 2007 5:12 pm

Investment Property » Investment Property May 20, 2007 5:12 pm — Sun, 20 May 2007 21:17:41 +0000

[...] The Case Against Perpetual Copyrights Though they may be divided and diminished by inflation, imperfect investment, a proliferation of descendants and the government taking its share, they are not simply expropriated. That is, unless you own a copyright. … [...]

By: Conrad

Conrad — Sun, 20 May 2007 21:02:03 +0000

Selection of terminology often changes the nature and direction of a debate. The term “property” refers to an idea that has built up over several millenia in various cultures about control of physical objects. The creators of the term “intellectual property” have misappropriated these ideas by applying them to copyrights, patents, and trademarks. The author of the original article follows thought process that are wholly logical if we really think that ideas can be “property”.

The author of this Liberty Papers article, while well-intentioned, makes the fatal mistake of continuing to use the inappropriate term “intellectual property” to refer to ideas, and thus undercuts his whole argument.

Try calling them accurately what they are – “intellectual monopolies” – and if we can get that term broader exposure and adoption the right decisions will follow automatically.

By: Saul

Saul — Sun, 20 May 2007 20:12:06 +0000

“Whether itâ€™s the formula for Bayer Aspirin, though, or the text of To Kill A Mockingbird, there is no rational reason to extend copyright protection indefinitely.”

Moreso when one recognizes that copyright is a construct of the state. We may squabble over whether or not rights are categorical in nature, but surely no one would be so crass to suggest that property of the “intellectual” sort is valid in the same sense.