Copyright Protection

I am unwritten
Can't read my mind
I'm undefined
--Natasha Beddingfield

Interesting discussion of copyright laws, including some relevant Supreme Court decisions, in the context of the Constitution. The main argument is that the federal government has expanded the scope of copyright laws far beyond what was originally intended, and that copyright terms should be shortened.

While this is likely true, the author's central argument is grounded in the assumptions that so called intellectual property (IP) of any type, including copyrights, is legitimate property, and that the framers were correct in specifying the power to grant legal IP-related monopolies as within the proper scope of central government.

These assumptions are contestable.

It can be argued that IP is not property at all. It is not scarce. Unlike tangible property, where taking it away from the owner denies use of property to the owner, intangible ideas can be infinitely reproduced without denying use to the purported owner or originator. Moreover, clean title cannot be shown for an idea. It is impossible to demonstrate that the ideas of one person have not been significantly influenced by the thoughts and ideas of other people.

The framers justified IP protection as a way to encourage new ideas and innovation through the establishment of a statutorily created property right. Without a way to reap the fruits of their intellectual labor, it was supposed, then individuals would be less prone to create.

However, there is little evidence that this is the case. It seems equally if not more likely that grant of monopolistic privilege creates barriers to entry that impair competition. As famously noted by Schumpeter, it is unhampered competition, not protection from competition, that drives innovation and creativity over time.

Laws that grant monopoly power over ideas and their expression limit progress, and can be seen as a form of censorship--in conflict with the First Amendment.

Copyright protection is one of a few areas that the framers got wrong.