Slashdot points to a debate ongoing regarding copyright.
The New York Times has run an op-ed by Mark Helprin calling for an extension of copyright, perhaps effectively out to perpetuity:
Once the state has dipped its enormous beak into the stream of your wealth and possessions they are allowed to flow from one generation to the next. 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. Were I tomorrow to write the great American novel (again?), 70 years after my death the rights to it, though taxed at inheritance, would be stripped from my children and grandchildren. To the claim that this provision strikes malefactors of great wealth, one might ask, first, where the heirs of Sylvia Plath berth their 200-foot yachts. And, second, why, when such a stiff penalty is not applied to the owners of Rockefeller Center or Wal-Mart, it is brought to bear against legions of harmless drudges who, other than a handful of literary plutocrats (manufacturers, really), are destined by the nature of things to be no more financially secure than a seal in the Central Park Zoo.
A community response is being drafted at lessig.org:
A copyright, however, impedes others’ behavior, and not just behavior but their speech, because to communicate something someone has already said, you must reproduce it (orally, visually on paper, etc.). If one happens to find Mr. Helprin’s article a most effective argument, and wants to convince others of the same point by using those very effective words, copyright can prevent such speech from taking place. And because new creative works are often derivative in some ways from older works (i.e. mixes of excerpts of older works, original transformations of various kinds), copyrights stifle the ability to create.
…and so forth.
As I am prone to do, I firmly straddle the fence on the matter.
On the one hand, I can’t help but wonder just how many Great Works of literature and music would be considered Great if they hadn’t been unencumbered of copyright after a period of time, and freed for others to use and derive their own works from.
On the other hand, the idea that a work’s creator (or his/her estate) ought to be able to reap the rewards from its creation has a certain appeal to me. Of course, that appeal is a little tarnished by the knowledge that the main proponents of perpetual copyright seem to be large corporations who presumably have other streams of revenue, as well as the knowledge that patents are extremely limited in their lifespan (and mercifully so, considering some of the patent abuse rampant in the U.S.).
My gut says that a limitation on copyright is a good thing, and that the current limit of (death of the creator plus 70 years) is the limit of “Good Thingedness”.
However, if we must be headed down a path of perpetual copyright, could we at least get an abandonment clause incorporated into the law? If the idea of permitting a creator (or his/her estate) to reap the rewards of that creation is at the root of copyright, then it would stand to reason that the creation ought to fall to the public domain if rewards cease to be reaped.
After all, the movie It’s a Wonderful Life was several years ago viewed by its owners as not-valuable, and copyright was allowed to lapse. The movie was then freely distributed, earning it a place in American holiday tradition (even if, after the fact, it was observed that the soundtrack was still under copyright).
1 response so far ↓
1 SAN // 27 May 2007 at 10:39 am
Intellectual property is a very different type of entity than tangible. Intellectual property can be used by everyone without inpinging upon the original maker. My reading of Oprah’s latest book doesn’t stop Tom down the street from reading his copy of the same book. It could be put online, allowing millions to read it simultaenously.
Also, Mark Helprin looks at the issue from a very odd way. The government doesn’t strip anything away from the owners when copyright expires. All that happens is that the copyright holders cannot use the government’s judicial powers (fines, imprisonment, injunctions, etc…) to stop others from making use of the property after a certain time. No different than a patent. Both are government enforced monopolies. The government’s role is inheritantly negative here - stopping others from engaging in activities (republishing) that cause no direct harm (the holder still has full, unobstructed use of the patented/copyrighted material) to the copyright holders. A copyright is simply a government enforced right.
As far as I’m concerned, the creation of a coercive, government enforced monopoly should be for the benefit of society as a whole. Indefinite copyrights are a bad idea. How would society benefit from rewarding Shakespeares heirs (as an example) today for all the plays he produced and people use all over the place? Have people stopped making plays, writing great books? No. Personally, the current US system is pretty overgenerous at it is. You can personally get rich during your lifetime, and your heirs live nicely for 3 to 4 generations. If you die in your 70s, then your greatgrand children will still be getting cash from your books for a longtime to come. More than enough incentive to right the next great play.