Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

Linda Gruber <linda[_at_]novelart.com> wrote:

>> 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.

>You can say that if you don't accept that what I create is my property.
>If I created anything that was not protected under copyright law, I
>would have property rights in it. The government named my work
>something different so they could make up new laws to regulate it.

The one important attribute of copyright protection is that it is a monopoly on *copying*. Thus the property aspects of copyright are quite different than other forms of property. I think of copyright as being more of a granted monopoly, a contract if you will.

>I am talking about there being an expiration. The rights to my work
>should be perpetual as yours are in the ownership of any family heirloom.

Yes, and you want this ownership to be enforced for you with taxpayer's money, without your heirs paying a dime.

Nor do you plan to compensate those artists and writers who had some influence on you when you created the work in the first place. No work truly stands alone but rather stands on the shoulders of giants.

>> 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.

>Do states still tax personal property? I haven't lived in any state
>that did since I was a kid.

Here in Utah, every year I pay a personal property tax on my car for renewing registration. I can even deduct this property tax on my Federal Taxes. This money goes into the highway fund, to build the roads so I can drive my car on them.

If we ever went to a perpetual copyright system, the owners should pay a yearly fee (like a property tax) to maintain copyright ownership. The fees will go to the Copyright Office and the Federal Courts to enforce *your* rights, which with current trends any infringement will soon be dealt with as severely as drug dealing. Somebody copies your work, and they get ten years in prison. All so your heirs can potentially live in comfort and never have to life a finger if your work becomes popular enough. To be honest, I have a lot of difficulty with this, and I'm a libertarian!

>The public domain is not the presumed origin of creations by seasoned,
>professional creators. I guess I can imagine doing a work based on
>an old work with the specific intent of commenting on how times had
>changed. Maybe rendering something familiar with a new idea or
>employing a new style of art on an old piece to make an interesting
>point. I can think of such exceptions, but for the most part, I see
>the public domain as a great training ground for students gaining
>technique, knowledge of style, and rendering skills. The
>professionals creators I know generally try to be original. That's
>how society is pushed into the future.

Nevertheless, new creators of works are influenced by those of the past. The progression of literary styles, art styles, etc., and the influence of past masters is clearly evident. A pedigree for any work can be established. No work truly stands alone.

>A freelance professional writer is actually a small business and
>therefore should be able to deduct the expenses against the income
>of that business. When you do someone else's bidding, they handle
>the expenses.

Thus, a copyright owner, to maintain indefinite monopoly rights to a work will gladly pay a yearly tax. To ask the taxpayer to pay for your monopoly forever without you paying a dime, especially one which requires very special international treatment such as copyright, is ludicrous.

>Taking ones private property is what I say copyright term limits do.
>That's why I say creators should be compensated and not singled out
>as the only ones expected to do public service with our work.

The crux of this intractable argument is the definition of property, and how copyright fits into that notion. It is clear that the nature of copyright is wholly different than other forms of property, such as land ownership. I can copy a book in a photocopy machine, but other than building floating platforms out in the ocean, I can't create new real property. There is no "copyland" button on my photocopy machine.

You are taking the fundamental premise that the right of copyright is a form of property like other forms of property. If we all simply accept the same premise, you are right. But many of us here are going to a deeper level of understanding just what is copyright, its role in society, what is a just system of enforcement and duration, who pays for what, etc.

Ultimately, it is about money, and I resent paying for your monopoly indefinitely.

>In this new digital age the public domain poses a threat to creativity
>as never before. Anyone can decide to become a publisher of recycled
>public domain works by doing nothing more than reformatting them in
>electronic form. That's why the term limits should be extended.

Let the free market prevail here.

>Congress has a duty to promote more original creation and thwart the
>recycling of public domain works which depress the market for creators
>of original content. Emerging authors should not be forced to compete
>with familiar titles and authors for a buyer's dollar in a fledgling
>eBook market.

It would not surprise me if detailed studies on this matter would show that having a ten year versus a 200 year copyright term would have zero effect on 99% of all created works. The other 1% are those works requiring big $$$ to create such as Hollywood movies. Even here, probably 95% of all the revenue nearly all movies generate is in the first 5 years.

Since neither of us can present compelling and conclusive studies on this matter, then both of us cannot defend our positions on this. It is interesting that you choose to use this argument since with a wholly "natural right" view of copyright the idea of invoking the U.S. Constitution view of copyright (see Madison's mention of it in a prior post) is simply silly. The "copyright is a natural right" view would advocate the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution to be amended, not ignored or reinterpreted. Funny, I've heard few advocating this, yet if one is to be pure to the "copyright is a natural right" view, then one must advocated the Copyright Clause be altered to reflect perpetual monopoly of copyright.

Jon Noring
Windspun Received on Mon Aug 07 2000 - 13:51:23 GMT