The Slippery Slope of Intellectual "Property" Law
"The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files [Jeffrey] Howell [of Scottsdale, Ariz.] made on his computer from legally bought CDs are 'unauthorized copies' of copyrighted recordings."
Hat tip: Jacob Hornberger
Cross-posted at Free Association.
comments powered by Disqus
Gus diZerega - 1/3/2008
Interesting theoretical issue here.
This case is a good example of the fundamentally contradictory interests of organizations in spontaneous orders and the orders themselves. It is in keeping with Disney's earlier successful efforts to rewrite copyright law to reward "ownership" rather than creativity.
Organizations seek to control all information because by doing so they make their environment more predictable and they possess valuable resources, resources that lose value when not controlled.
Spontaneous orders adapt and coordinate best when information is as abundant as possible, with the order itself generating whatever coordinating mechanisms are needed to coordinate complexity.
Those who adapted property law to "intellectual property" demonstrated they understood neither the ethical case for property nor the reasons markets work so well.
The same kind of tension exists between political parties and democracies, schools of scientific thought and science, and individual organisms and eco-systems.
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign