Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000, Linda Gruber <linda[_at_]novelart.com> wrote:
>
> Why are copyright owners not compensated with fair market value like
> other citizens who are forced to give up their private property due to
> eminent domain?

Copyright owners do receive "fair market value" -- and are not "forced to give up their private property". (Setting aside the question of whether an author or songwriter is properly compensated by whatever MegaCorp they sell the publishing rights to.) No governmental agency sets prices for copyrighted works, and -- aside from some antitrust possibilities -- no governmental agency has the power to seize the copyright of a work.

> Why are we singled out to have to give over the fruits of our
> labor while others are not?

Name one example of an author being forced to give up his or her US copyright before it expires? (And in particular before the period of time that it was originally copyrighted for.) Name one example of a living author being forced to give up the US copyright to his or her work created after the "Life plus X" provision being added to Copyright law?

> Why shouldn't we have every right to fight to hold on to our
> copyrights for as long as we can manage?

You do have that right (or at least Disney does...) and law currently says that the copyright is yours -- unless you sell it -- for as long as you live, and your heirs might be able to continue benefiting from it even if you sold it during your life. And all of that ownership is tax-free, unlike real property which is taxed even if you are not making anything off of it.

> In my view, the government had no right to take our private property
> rights without paying us to begin with.

I'll consider endorsing a perpetual copyright when authors give up their right to create and copyright derivative works from public domain material.

> At the very least, we should be compensated through lower taxation
> on earnings we make during the course of the copyright term.

As someone who would love to be able to support himself writing that has some very interesting possibilities to it, but authors already get to deduct a lot of expenses that those of us who do the bidding of others can not deduct.

> Then after a lengthy term, the government could say it has paid
> to take our property through eminent domain. A risk that all
> citizens face when the government wants something.

Growing up in the United States I've always seen the government as "of, by, and for" the people. Although I often do not agree with a significant percentage of the population of this country I've never felt that the government is separate from the citizenry. Unfortunately not every country is a democratic republic. But in the United States the use of eminent domain is something that is under the control of the people -- your friends and neighbors. Sometimes they agree with you and sometimes they don't.

However the expiration of a copyright has nothing to do with eminent domain, an expiring copyright is much much more like the reversion of ownership to the "public domain" from which it grew. This leaves the "public domain" greatly enriched with intellectual ore from which authors can create -- and profit from -- new works with out fear that they will be denied the fruit of their creativity by some MegaCorp functionary or great-great-great grandchild of an earlier author. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

     Regards,
     Christopher

Christopher Gwyn
<christopher[_at_]icopyright.com> Received on Sat Aug 05 2000 - 00:39:14 GMT