Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
Called Copyright Unbalanced, the book attempts to capture current thinking from conservative and libertarian writers on how current US copyright law has gone awry and what might be done to fix it. Solutions include fighting against "crony capitalism", rolling back criminal penalties and forfeiture in copyright cases, and returning to a more originalist vision of copyright, in which the monopoly is given to serve a public good, not to enrich corporations or individuals.
It seems to me that - as happened with the opposition to SOPA - the current utter disaster that is our copyright system is a place where major elements of both left- and right-wing social/political thinkers can come to useful agreement. Liberals aren't uniformly opposed to big government, but tend to favor open intellectual exchanges, which current copyright regimes are crippling. Conservatives oppose government's continual expansion of its powers and certainly the repeated extensions of copyright's scope and reach fit that description. And libertarians often seek rational bases for restraining governments' powers; in my opinion the current management of copyright has strayed so far from its Constitutional intentions as to be irrational. Thus I think we need to cooperate on finding ways to reign things in.
However, as Jerry Brito comments in the linked entry above, this need is likely going to fall into the same generational gap as opposition to SOPA did. The older, established parts of both Republican and Democratic parties are beholden to the entertainment industry for dollars and are locked into old-model ways of thinking. The younger and more dynamic parts of the parties (e.g. techno-libertarians and Internet/social media liberal-progressives) will find themselves fighting the party elders on this issue. And as I mentioned in the entry earlier this month I am sadly lacking in hope that the second Obama term will be any better in this regard than his first, no matter how much he used the younger parts of the Democratic base to get re-elected.
Alan, people have got to question the mythological Constitutional basis for copyright, as well as Queen Anne's claim it was for the encouragement of learning. Pretext neither implies purpose nor product.
Copyright is a disaster. It is not just the current implementation, but the privilege itself. Copyright never served a public good. People have simply been indoctrinated to believe it does.
It is simply an illusion that as copyright's sociopathy becomes clearer to some people, they imagine a golden age in which we once enjoyed its abridgement of our liberty to share and build upon our own culture.
Removing copyright and/or patent protection for the currently defined period would destroy the incentive for anyone to create- anything.
Only very few will be willing to create or produce anything original only for the 'common good.'
3. Alan Wexelblat on November 28, 2012 12:26 PM writes...
@Crosbie good to have you back. I think you're in a significant minority on the lack of a Constitutional basis.
@Stephen it's possible, but we have centuries of evidence that great works (all of Shakespeare, DaVinci's art, etc) were made without any copyright being around. I'm still a proponent of creators need to get paid, but copyright is only one mechanism for compensating creators. There are lots of other models, such as crowdfunding, patronage, and salaried work none of which depend on copyright.
1. Crosbie Fitch on November 25, 2012 4:59 AM writes...
Alan, people have got to question the mythological Constitutional basis for copyright, as well as Queen Anne's claim it was for the encouragement of learning. Pretext neither implies purpose nor product.
I explain the lack of a Constitutional basis in a comment to: www.techdirt.com/copyright-new-mercantilism.shtml
Copyright is a disaster. It is not just the current implementation, but the privilege itself. Copyright never served a public good. People have simply been indoctrinated to believe it does.
It is simply an illusion that as copyright's sociopathy becomes clearer to some people, they imagine a golden age in which we once enjoyed its abridgement of our liberty to share and build upon our own culture.
Permalink to Comment2. Stephen C. Allison on November 27, 2012 1:14 PM writes...
Removing copyright and/or patent protection for the currently defined period would destroy the incentive for anyone to create- anything.
Permalink to CommentOnly very few will be willing to create or produce anything original only for the 'common good.'
3. Alan Wexelblat on November 28, 2012 12:26 PM writes...
@Crosbie good to have you back. I think you're in a significant minority on the lack of a Constitutional basis.
@Stephen it's possible, but we have centuries of evidence that great works (all of Shakespeare, DaVinci's art, etc) were made without any copyright being around. I'm still a proponent of creators need to get paid, but copyright is only one mechanism for compensating creators. There are lots of other models, such as crowdfunding, patronage, and salaried work none of which depend on copyright.
Permalink to Comment