Wrong Copyrights

"You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what's up here? How do you fight an idea?"
--Sextus (Ben-Hur)

NYT article discusses add-ons and follow-ups to classic works that will be possible once prohibitory copyrights expire. Because copyrights grant monopolistic privileges to holders, both production and consumption are lower than they otherwise would be. Standard of living is therefore compromised.

The article nicely demonstrates how standard of living can be improved once those monopolistic restrictions are lifted.

As these pages have discussed, it is debatable whether copyrights and other forms of intellectual property (IP) constitute property at all.  Intellectual property is not scarce. Unlike tangible property, where taking it away denies use of that property to the owner, ideas upon which intellectual property are based can be infinitely reproduced without denying the purported originator or 'owner' of its use.

Unlike tangible property, where ownership can be demonstrated by various means, such as its purchase from someone else via a bill of sale, clean title can not be shown for an idea. It is impossible to separate thoughts that are truly mine from thoughts of others that I may have built upon.

Arguments that IP laws encourage innovation can be readily countered. Standard of living improves when goods and services are produced that people want. But copyright and other IP laws restrict production  and  subsequent consumption, thereby restraining prosperity. Moreover, IP laws raise entry barriers to entrepreneurs. Incumbent firms benefit, industries get more concentrated and less competitive. Consequently, innovation declines.

Extending constitutional copyright protection to producers continues to be one of the few areas that our founding ancestors got wrong. The NYT article helps demonstrate this mistake by describing bright possibilities of copyright-free situations.