An eternal flame for copyright protection
The U.S. government has repeatedly
In an op-ed piece for The New York Times this weekend, author Mark Helprin put forth a proposal for extending copyright protection essentially forever, arguing that releasing works into the public domain punishes artists and their families. Real property can be passed down for generations, he argues; why not intellectual property?
"Congress is free to extend at will the term of copyright. It last did so in 1998, and should do so again, as far as it can throw. Would it not be just and fair for those who try to extract a living from the uncertain arts of writing and composing to be freed from a form of confiscation not visited upon anyone else?" he wrote. "The answer is obvious, and transcends even justice. No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind."
(Earlier this year, novelist Jonathan Lethem in Harper's offered a much different take on intellectual property in the cultural realm, "The Ecstasy of Influence.")
In a world where people already feel justified in stealing property that is under copyright protection, Helprin's arguments were, not surprisingly, met with scorn. But there were also many reasoned arguments that his proposal could be unconstitutional, and might have a stifling effect on future creativity.
Blog community response:
"Not only is perpetual copyright not needed to promote innovation, it is likely to actually impede it by making it more difficult to create new works that build on copyrighted ideas and images from old ones."
--Volokh.com
"This is either inexcusably stupid or willfully dishonest. The government does not take possession of intellectual property after a period of copyright expires: the government merely ceases to use its resources to ensure that the originator of the intellectual property has the exclusive right to profit from that work."
--Whiskey Fire
"Helprin misses another point: why should one's children continue to enjoy their exclusive copyright? They certainly didn't invent the idea; why should they leech off their ancestor's usefulness?"
--Conjecturer
Margaret is news editor for CNET News, based in the Boston bureau. She also oversees the CNET Blog Network. E-mail Margaret. 
the rights of the larger community to the great texts which
define our culture. Shakespeare's heirs hold no copyright on
Macbeth; nor should the heirs of Eliot and Joyce a century after
their great works first saw the light of day.
But let's be honest here: Congress did not undertake its recent
extensions of copyright out of love for the heirs of Hemmingway
and Fitzgerald. They did it in response to lobbying from big
corporations like Disney. It's no accident that the most recent
extension of copyright came when Mickey Mouse was on the
verge of becoming the common property of us all.
Cultural tradition ought to be the sole property of none. It is a
rich common heritage in which we all hold joint ownership. As
we approach the centenary of his birth, it is high time that
Mickey Mouse became in law, as in fact, our common heritage.
I'm not necessarily in favor of extending copyright, but if we're going to put forth an argument, let's don't use specious arguments.
If you sell a copy of your Intellectual Property, then we can do whatever we want with the copy like real property. Then we can make as many copies we want like real proptery.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Nothing in there sounds like they were intended to be "forever" [limited times]... nor does it say anything about heirs making money. It is to promote the progress of science and art. Same basis for the existence of patents.
Devils advocate: If the US was to treat copyrights and patents (has to be both since they are both based on the same clause in the constitution) can the government then start snatching up intellectual property and handing it over to other companies, based on imminent domain? For the common good of the people?... as was with the land disputes recently for malls and such?
In the case of Disney, for example, no Disney creation should lose copyright until some period of time, say ten years, after Disney ceases to make use of its copyright, whether by selling instances or introducing it into new creations.
In the case of literature, the author should be given the copyright for life, and heirs should be allowed to keep the copyright so long as they actively use it, e.g. continue publishing the work, plus ten years.
I would not steal a copyright from Christopher Tolkien; he constantly works to keep his father's creations available, and even publishes new material not publicly available before his fatherr's passing. By no means should any copyright be stolen from such an individual.
- Is Memory Illegal?
- by Brad S. S. May 22, 2007 6:43 AM PDT
- Why aren't our memories illegal? Aren't they electronic copies of the media we see and hear?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)