Michael
Feb 24th 2010, 02:13 PM
Copyright & Patent Law
This is a very complex issue and one that exists where capitalism and the public interest intersect. In previous discussions, I've expressed a rather blase attitude to the claim that copyright and patent law serve the public interest. I consider this laughable. I accept copyright and patent law as acceptable only if it serves a public interest.
If there is no public interest served, copyright and/or patent laws are nothing more than legal protections bought and paid for from the state. And we all know that this is a favorite method used by capitalist enterprises to eliminate competition. Eliminating competition is not in the public interest, therefore I hold that this argument has no merit.
Indeed, I'm interested if anyone can make a case for copyright or patent law that doesn't serve a public interest. I think that's nonsense, but I will admit that is the ruling dogma of the policy of copyright and patent laws.
So the question is, what can or ought to be done about this problem? I find it ludicrious that our legal system will not recognize proprietary ownership of all kinds of things, but then invokes the heavy hand of the law to protect proprietary ownership of certain select things (those favored by large multinational corporations) that can be commodified.
For example, I can build a house that looks exactly like the White House. The architect and the builder of the White House have no rights of proprietary ownership over their creation at all. The minute that building was sold, these creators have zero rights at all. So why do we ignore the creative production of architects but invoke the legal system to protect the creative production of music (for example)? That strikes me as entirely arbitrary, though the real difference I suspect lies in the fact that architects are not multinational corporations seeking to profit from artificial limits on production/distribution. Of course artists, photographers and authors are in bed with the multinationals on this one - they too seek to profit by imposing artifical legal limits on production/distribution (for their own private profit).
So why should society bother to protect and enforce private profits for these special interests? What public interest is served here? I don't see any public interest at all. :shrug:
For anyone who is curious, here (http://chronicle.com/article/Learning-From-Culture-Pirates/64294/) is a good article about the history of copyright piracy. The article puts the present issues into a proper historical context.
One fact of the history of copyright and patents that I find is curiously overlooked by almost everyone is the historical fact that the US economy was built by ignoring copyright and patent law. Indeed, the greatest increase in prosperity, production, employment and industry in the USA occured when the USA formally repudiated the notions of all existing copyright and patent laws. That of course changed just as soon as a bunch of American corporations had fat profits from their stolen copyrights that they invoked a new copyright law to protect their copyright theft. On this basis, I find it very hard to take assertions about the moral integrity of copyright/property ownership as anything but self-serving bullshit.
This is a very complex issue and one that exists where capitalism and the public interest intersect. In previous discussions, I've expressed a rather blase attitude to the claim that copyright and patent law serve the public interest. I consider this laughable. I accept copyright and patent law as acceptable only if it serves a public interest.
If there is no public interest served, copyright and/or patent laws are nothing more than legal protections bought and paid for from the state. And we all know that this is a favorite method used by capitalist enterprises to eliminate competition. Eliminating competition is not in the public interest, therefore I hold that this argument has no merit.
Indeed, I'm interested if anyone can make a case for copyright or patent law that doesn't serve a public interest. I think that's nonsense, but I will admit that is the ruling dogma of the policy of copyright and patent laws.
So the question is, what can or ought to be done about this problem? I find it ludicrious that our legal system will not recognize proprietary ownership of all kinds of things, but then invokes the heavy hand of the law to protect proprietary ownership of certain select things (those favored by large multinational corporations) that can be commodified.
For example, I can build a house that looks exactly like the White House. The architect and the builder of the White House have no rights of proprietary ownership over their creation at all. The minute that building was sold, these creators have zero rights at all. So why do we ignore the creative production of architects but invoke the legal system to protect the creative production of music (for example)? That strikes me as entirely arbitrary, though the real difference I suspect lies in the fact that architects are not multinational corporations seeking to profit from artificial limits on production/distribution. Of course artists, photographers and authors are in bed with the multinationals on this one - they too seek to profit by imposing artifical legal limits on production/distribution (for their own private profit).
So why should society bother to protect and enforce private profits for these special interests? What public interest is served here? I don't see any public interest at all. :shrug:
For anyone who is curious, here (http://chronicle.com/article/Learning-From-Culture-Pirates/64294/) is a good article about the history of copyright piracy. The article puts the present issues into a proper historical context.
One fact of the history of copyright and patents that I find is curiously overlooked by almost everyone is the historical fact that the US economy was built by ignoring copyright and patent law. Indeed, the greatest increase in prosperity, production, employment and industry in the USA occured when the USA formally repudiated the notions of all existing copyright and patent laws. That of course changed just as soon as a bunch of American corporations had fat profits from their stolen copyrights that they invoked a new copyright law to protect their copyright theft. On this basis, I find it very hard to take assertions about the moral integrity of copyright/property ownership as anything but self-serving bullshit.