Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Is there really any fundamental difference between intellectual property and "physical" property? You seem to be saying that it's "OK" to pass on physical property to your heirs, but not intellectual property. Why do you make that distinction? Is intellectual property less "valued" than physical property? Is it less work to create it? I don't think it is!
If I build a house, I can pass on the ownership of that house to my children. You're saying that if, instead of building a house, I write a book, I shouldn't be allowed to pass on rights to income from the book to my children? Can you explain what the difference in the two situations is? I really can't see any!
|
Alright, Harry, I'll give it a go.
Physical property; i. e. "real" property; pre-exists the creative impulse. Land, raw materials, tools (assuming tools are used in the creation process, and yes, tools are used to create tools), and labor. The result is a modified real product. (In your example, a house). The product, finished, has a value (which may or may not exceed the cost of all the inputs) on the open market as a
finished product,
not as the value of the inputs. No input is paid for more than once, and no residuals remain if it is sold. The house can be sold over and over again, and the original builder/owner will get no additional money past the first sale because of it.
Intellectual Property is a completely different animal, and it always has been. It has
never been granted perpetuity, unlike real property. The only property rights that exist for I.P. have been expressly given by governments to encourage creativity. These have always been in the form of a
limited, wasting monopoly. The expectation was that the creator would therefore benefit from the monopoly, and be encouraged to create more. It was
not to create a perpetual real property. In the US, our constitution
explicitly denies that possibility. Why limited and wasting? Because the reversion to the public domain is a social good, to be balanced with the need for encouragement of creativity.
Is the balance currently fair? For copyright, NO! Not just NO but <BLEEP> NO!
Consider patent. At the turn of the 20th century, it was 17 year plus one renewal of 17 years. Total of 34 years, max. Copyright was the same. Why the same? Because both were creative expressions of ideas. Both were considered to be equally difficult. (An insult to the patent process, IMHO.) Now what is it? Patent has been shortened to 20 year, total. The invention world has not come to an end. Not by a long sight. The copyright world has been lengthened to life plus 70 years. A young author might publish a work at 20, live to be 90, and add 70 years to that, for a net of 140 years. 20 vs 140?
That's fair?
Finally, show me any other labor that has residual payments attached? I know of none. Why is copyright labor so
special?