History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I have to take the view that there is little if any merit in Arthur Miller's argument in favor of extending copyright to cover ideas. The most basic fallacy is that observed by William Morris, back in the 1880's. Creation is fun-- the artist gets, as Morris put it, "the wages that God gets." There is no need for extraordinary financial incentives. In the absence of restrictions of some kind, more people come and create than the market will support. People who make their money from ideas usually make their money by suppressing ideas, not by creating them. Ani DeFranco and Courtney Love, inter alia, have commented at some length on the business practices of the music recording industry, a rather extreme example.
A great many engineers have reached a point of active disgust with the patent office, on account of the patent office granting patents for things which have long been in common use, or are immediately obvious to one skilled in the art. The patent office makes a profit by granting patents, and has every incentive to grant as many patents as possible, and upon the flimsiest grounds. The standard of originality for a patent is set at approximately the same level as a C grade in a sophomore-level course. This pervasive corruption has always been a part of the patent office. Patent litigation has become a species of "protection racket" in which lawyers prey on engineers. There are large numbers of lawyers who bring meritless lawsuits in the hope of being paid to go away. The SCO case, presently in progress, is a perfect example of this. There is absolutely no need to extend this system to literature.
The editor of a leading computer magazine referred to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as "bought and paid for legislation." The movie and music industries systematically give "campaign contributions" to legislators representing districts in which there is essentially no music and movie industry employment. When these legislators leave office, they go to work as lobbyists for the movie and music industries. The Supreme Court, in Eldred, refused to confront the reality of this pervasive corruption.
The historical analogy which suggests itself is the manner in which James I granted monopolies on common articles such as soap and candles to his court favorites, such as the Duke of Buckingham.
Looks interesting, Mark.
Will definitely want to sit down and read it. I've been interested in intellectual property protection (via non-state methods) at least since I originally read Spooner's "Law of Intellectual Property" years ago.
I find myself quite uncomfortable with the commonly accepted amongst libertarians that we should take the communist road and deny property ownership. I've always regarded this as the wrong take on the subject.
Cheers!
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/