Copyright: An Outdated Law That Puts a Cap on Creativity
5th August 2011
Introduced in Britain in 1709 by the Statute of Anne, copyright initially protected creative works for 14 years, with the option to extend that by another 14 if the author was still alive. The need for protection was – and still is – indisputable. If your work can be reproduced by anyone else, why bother creating it in the first place? Why spend time, money and energy writing a book, for example, if someone can simply reprint it, charge less (because they have no overheads or labour costs) and walk away with the money?
Well, let’s ask Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, all of the classical poets, all of the medieval scholars, all of the artisans of the Renaissance, and indeed anybody who wrote or created anything prior to1709. Obviously the Louvre and the Bodelian Library must be full of fakes, because nobody would go to all that trouble if they couldn’t copyright it.
Over the years, however, the length of the copyright period has steadily lengthened, beyond the point where it can be considered an incentive. In 1842, the term in Britain was extended to 42 years, or the life of the author plus seven years. By 1911, it had become life plus 50 years and, in 1996, it was extended again to life plus 70 years for a “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work” (sound recordings are currently protected for 50 years).
This situation is essentially ridiculous. A copyright period that extends beyond the life of the author is clearly not an incentive to create – whatever rewards you offer, John Lennon is unlikely to write any more songs (although the music industry did include the names of several dead musicians among the 4,000 whom it listed in 2006 as supporting a further extension, so perhaps it might work after all).
The whole concept of ‘intellectual property’ is a myth that is long past it’s use-by date. The essence of property is exclusion; you can’t use my property while I’ve got it; and if you steal it, it’s no longer available for my use. If you compose a bunch of songs or stories, and I copy those, even though I now have them, you still have them too; there has been no transfer of exclusive use. Anything that can be transmitted to another without depriving the originator of its full enjoyment does not come within the concept of property, period. ‘Intellectual property’ is a purely artificial legal construct that has no natural foundation; it’s principal effect in the modern world is to stifle innovation rather than to promote it.
August 5th, 2011 at 10:50
So, if “intellectual property” is a myth, and should not be allowed, where is the incentive for anyone to create new intellectual substance–art, music, literature–if they cannot then reap the profit of their labors? (Leave aside the inherent impusle of the artistic nature, i.e., you create because something within you compells you to create.)
“Delenda est copyright!” is the cry of the less-talented, who want to piggy-back on the efforts of the crative without actually going to all that bother. It is the parasitical condition described in Atlas Shrugged in its purest form.
August 5th, 2011 at 23:01
I agree with Nagle on this one. I will admit that it has gotten crazy on what is “intellectual property.” I am reminded of the David Letterman’s fight with NBC over the TOP TEN list when he moved to CBS. Also, I once got a backstage tour of the Noah’s Ark production in Branson, MO. I was surprised that the stage props themselves were “copyrighted” and no cameras were allow.
But original works should have a compensation. If someone spends all their time in study to work out a solution to some social issue and they include their answer/argument in a book that brings about a great social improvement they ought to be compensated. (If you have ever read “The Five Love Languages” I would say this is a good example.)
I think the Founders were very keen on property even into the area of ideas; hence patent and copyright law were included in the constitution.