
A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? - far33d
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html
======
inklesspen
There's no such thing as intellectual property. Copyright is a limited
monopoly that the public gives to an author in exchange for an author
enriching the public with his works. If the public is never to enjoy the full
enrichment that comes from the work (such as being able to use it for the
basis of other stories, the way we do with Shakespeare), then the intent of
copyright is being perverted.

------
aristus
"No one except perhaps Hamilton or Franklin might have imagined that services
and intellectual property would become primary fields of endeavor and the
chief engines of the economy."

What bullshit. Ideas already were the "chief engines" in their time, a
somewhat famous period called the "Industrial Revolution". The crown forbade
the transfer of manufacturing knowledge, textile mill plans, etc, on pain of
death. The Colonies were forced to sell raw materials cheap and buy
manufactured goods dear.

The author also conflates the problem of publishing cartels with copyright,
jangling an image of the poor starving writer brutalized by the pinko copyleft
junta. He gives it away: the author gets 10% of sales while the publisher gets
50%. Who, then, is to benefit most from unlimited copyright? Why should we
worry about the yachts of the writer's grandchildren when the writer is being
robbed blind in his own lifetime?

~~~
Xichekolas
I was thinking along the same lines. The whole argument reads like one of
those anti-piracy commercials we see before movie previews... think of the
poor starving artist! (Don't think about the reason he is starving, which is
that the publishers/labels/studios reap most of the profits for themselves.)

He also seems to think that copyright only applies to the world of books. This
is probably natural because the guy is an author, but copyright has been
expanded to include so much that infinite copyright terms would grant dynastic
control of almost all media and culture.

I would like to point out however that the point is moot. Every time Disney
comes close to letting Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain, they
successfully lobby congress for an extension to copyright terms. So, as far as
we can tell, the terms are already infinite, because I don't see Congress
saying no anytime soon.

------
ced
\- Once a copyright expires, the physical medium encoding the work (book, CD,
etc...) becomes a commodity, which anyone can replicate. Under good
competition, the profit from selling those should be very small. Even moreso
in the digital age.

\- The article complains a lot that everything is inherited, except IP
protection. One can look at it in the opposite direction: these days, many
rich people are coming out against inherited wealth. Taxing it to a larger
extent than normal would make sense, from a mechanism design point of view. My
guess is that this cannot be done effectively; people would just start giving
away their property to their children before dying, escaping the "death tax".
Copyrights are easier to take away, because they have a natural owner.

~~~
akkartik
Good points both. Arguments like the article's sound plausible because
copyright law is currently weirdly implemented. What is so special about the
creator's death? Assign copyright for a fixed duration from publication, just
like patents.

------
ced
Copyrights and patents don't exist to protect their inventor. They provide an
incentive for people to create IP, which is beneficial to society. Extending
IP rights tends to increase the incentive. On the other hand, works in the
public domain are sources of wealth in their own right (esp. patents). Thus,
there is a critical amount of protection X, where society is best served. X
varies with the field, technological status, and other things.

The inventor's well-being is only a side-effect of this optimization problem.
The same argument applies against claims that taxes "steal" from people. It's
all just a big incentive structure. Nothing personal.

~~~
sabat
_Extending IP rights tends to increase the incentive._

Maybe, although I'd argue that shortening "IP" rights creatives more
incentive. If your cash cow only lives for so long, you might be more
motivated to make more cows.

Also, incentive for the author only exists when the copyright/patent is held
by the author, and while he's alive. Our copyright laws allow copyrights to be
"purchased" and bequeathed (no such allowance in the consitution), and held
long after the author's death. Charles Schultz is never going to create a new
Snoopy. Why is his copyright still valid?

~~~
ced
Yeah, but Charles Schultz could sell his copyright for more money because the
new holder knew that it would still be valid for a long time.

Though, there might be a case to be made that we'd all be better off if
copyrights could not be sold, only licensed for short periods.

I think the point here is that it's a complex problem, and the article does
nothing to represent that.

~~~
sabat
You're right: complex problem. My real point is that the authors of the
Constitution thought they'd settled it. The 1st ammendment says that freedom
of expression cannot be denied. Copyright law says "ok, temporarily, this
expressed idea is off the table, so that the author will make more."

Schultz could sell his copyright for more money, sure. But how does that
benefit anyone else? He was already given the right to publicize Snoopy -- a
right that not all societies enjoy. In exchange, he would have to realize that
his monopoly was short-lived.

The way Jefferson saw it, once an idea is expressed, it's not just yours
anymore -- it's in my head, too. Obviously you don't own what's in my head. So
with copyright laws, we're saying that the 1st ammendment does not apply,
temporarily: you may know the song, but you can't sing it, even though we've
now taken away your freedom of expression. That can only be short-lived, or we
may as well withdraw the 1st ammendment. And it's not as if Schultz created
Snoopy in a vacuum; he was influenced by other comic strip artists, and he
certainly did not invent the form. Did he owe them money? Did he owe society
money for allowing him to blast his drawings out to us without explicit
permission?

(I've always wanted to say something to Lars from Metallica. During the
Napster thing, he said, "They didn't even _ask_ us. They just took our songs."
To which I'd say, "yeah, Lars, but you never even asked _me_ before you made
your crap songs impossible for me to avoid. If I leave my house, there's your
shitty music. And you never even asked." There are two sides to this coin, and
it's remarkably convenient for copyright "owners" to forget that.)

------
rms
OK, let's get rid of copyright and instead require individuals wanting some
protection for their works to publish under Creative Commons Licenses.

Copyright can't be forever because it's too restrictive. Information wants to
be free.

------
awt
I don't see why copyright should extend past the life of the creator.

~~~
asbjxrn
Well, if you have a big company where the main asset is some copyrighted
material and the creator suddenly dies, that company might suddenly lose a lot
of revenue possibly affecting the life of a large number of people. (Of
course, you might say, that's business and it just means that another large
number of people now have a new business opportunity.)

I think the current life+70 years is wrong, but I think the expiry should be
predictable some time in advance. Like X years from the time of creation.

------
far33d
This is quite a provacative article. I don't think I agree with its
conclusions, but still an insightful read.

~~~
brlewis
You've got to be kidding. "No good case exists for the inequality of real and
intellectual property"? The writer has put hardly any thought into it at all.
There's no insight here; just shallow, selfish thinking.

~~~
far33d
I thought it would make for good discussion. Seems I was right :)

------
sabat
It's amazing how poorly people can use reason. The author is a good example.
He feels that if he can make an analogy -- however strained it might be --
that he has won his point.

Obviously he's wrong. An idea is not physical property. He gives a passing nod
to the founding fathers but fails to mention any part of the debate that led
to the copyright/patent clause. Jefferson, for one, says that it is ridiculous
to treat an idea as if it existed in the physical world. That's why they
settled for "limited monopoly" -- because they recognized that you can only
live in a fantasy world for so long.

I guess if I had to answer this guy directly -- the question posed in his
headline -- I might say:

Great ideas do _not_ live forever. They need to evolve and have the benefit of
other minds to hack at them, to improve them. Ask Walt Disney. He took the
ideas in the stories of the Brothers Grimm -- horrifying stories, if you've
ever read them -- and made them new, as well as palatable. Every idea has its
time, and its author does deserve a short monopoly as a congratulations. Then
it's others' turn. And in my book, that limited time is very, very short:
perhaps five years, perhaps even less.

Ideas benefit from hacking. If we want to stifle creativity and innovation, we
should freeze them in time with laws. If our aim is the opposite, then we
should consider giving them lives of their own. You're right: ideas _live_.
But things can only live if you are willing to give them freedom.

