Were the Founders wrong? The Constitution and Copyrights

[socialize_me]

I'm curious as to what you all think about the Constitution declaring
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I've been reading up on the critiques of Copyrights/Patents and I must say it's great stuff to read.

Could it be that the Founders were naive in this area and didn't fully understand the implications of that clause in the Constitution?? Or is it just that the Federal Government over the years has lost touch with the classical view of copyrights and patents, and that in fact it's been manipulated from its original intention and purpose??

I think it's ironic given the fact that in order to defend this clause and the Founders' reasoning, you are required to use implied interpretations of the Constitution; whereas the ones who have followed the Constitution on this one issue, like the Federal Government, are using the clause in its strictest form.

Input on this subject would be appreciated!!

[Brassmouth]

Frankly, yes. The Founders were wrong.

[Matt Collins]

Or is it just that the Federal Government over the years has lost touch with the classical view of copyrights and patents, and that in fact it's been manipulated from its original intention and purpose?? Basically it was fine until Disney et al started paying off congressmen to extend copyright to "infinity minus 1"

The problem is congressmen without integrity, not the Constitution.

[Matt Collins]

Frankly, yes. The Founders were wrong.
I don't think so. It is interesting though this is one of the only rights the government actually grants. Normally rights are inherent and the government grants privileges. But that's not the case regarding intellectual "property"

[socialize_me]

I don't think so. It is interesting though this is one of the only rights the government actually grants. Normally rights are inherent and the government grants privileges. But that's not the case regarding intellectual "property"

Very interesting point.

[demolama]

http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/

speaking of which this is nice little history tidbit to see where Jefferson stood on the matter and his correspondence with Madison while he was writing the Bill of Rights about it.

[socialize_me]

I don't think so. It is interesting though this is one of the only rights the government actually grants. Normally rights are inherent and the government grants privileges. But that's not the case regarding intellectual "property"

But aren't the goals of copyrights not to grant a right to the publisher, but rather to restrict anyone but the author to reconstruct the same materials, like a book for instance?? So it's not so much granting the author a right to his works; it's restricting third-parties from reusing or replicating the works of the creator.

[fr33domfightr]

Basically it was fine until Disney et al started paying off congressmen to extend copyright to "infinity minus 1"

The problem is congressmen without integrity, not the Constitution.

I agree, the infinity minus 1, or lifetime plus 50 or whatever for music, was not the intent. The idea was to protect the ideas for a true limited time. Then others could build on that idea after that limited time had passed.


FF

[Brassmouth]

But aren't the goals of copyrights not to grant a right to the publisher, but rather to restrict anyone but the author to reconstruct the same materials, like a book for instance?? So it's not so much granting the author a right to his works; it's restricting third-parties from reusing or replicating the works of the creator.

Exactly. "Intellectual property" rights are an infringement of true property rights, because they allow the original creator to use the State apparatus to control others. I recommend Kinsella's book.

[WRellim]

Basically it was fine until Disney et al started paying off congressmen to extend copyright to "infinity minus 1"

The problem is congressmen without integrity, not the Constitution.

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1909220#post1909220)I don't think so. It is interesting though this is one of the only rights the government actually grants. Normally rights are inherent and the government grants privileges. But that's not the case regarding intellectual "property"




The founders understood that it was a special grant of a "privilege" monopoly position -- the entire concept and language of "Intellectual PROPERTY" is anathema to the way they thought about it and what they intended.

Patents and copyrights were initially quite limited; simply designed to give new inventors and authors a short period of time to capitalize on their ideas before others would be capable of "copying" them without payment.

It worked very well. But as you noted, sadly, Disney et al have corrupted the system. (Which is extremely ironic -- to the point of being sickening -- considering that the vast majority of Disney's actual works -- whether Cinderella or Robinson Crusoe -- were derived from stories written by others that had then entered the public domain; so Disney never paid any royalties).

[Flirple]

Ditto on the Stephan Kinsella reading recommendation. You'll also find some of his good writtings and audio at Mises.org as well. You can't own something that can be reproduced without at all impairing the original copy.

If I steal your car without your permission you can no longer drive your car. If I copy your recipe or idea, the copies and ideas already in existence are still unchanged and can still be used. If I break into your property to steal your recipe written on a physical piece of paper then I have commited the crimes of tresspacing AND the theft of that piece of paper. But if I buy your product and figure out how to copy you recipe on my own then I have not violated your property. You can't own something that can be reproduced without at all impairing the original copy.

Yes the founders were wrong on this just as they were wrong about the Post Office or ability to tax directly etc. The founders are not infallible. In fact, the Constitutional convention was really just an elitist coup on the Articles of Confederation. It's useful to quote the founders and constitution as a way of pointing out the illegality and hypocrisy of our current government. But we need to to stop thinking of it as some divinely inspired document of truth. It was the seed that gave us our current centralized monster.

The anti-federalists were right.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes the founders were wrong on this just as they were wrong about the Post Office or ability to tax directly etc. The founders are not infallible. In fact, the Constitutional convention was really just an elitist coup on the Articles of Confederation. It's useful to quote the founders and constitution as a way of pointing out the illegality and hypocrisy of our current government. But we need to to stop thinking of it as some divinely inspired document of truth. It was the seed that gave us our current centralized monster.

The anti-federalists were right.

So was breathing. Maybe we should give that up too. Ya think? :rolleyes:

WE gave ourselves our "current centralized monster". We didn't stay vigilant. What our Founders did help give us was the most free and prosperous nation in the history of mankind. It was US that let it slip away.

Put the blame where it belongs.

[Matt Collins]

But aren't the goals of copyrights not to grant a right to the publisher, but rather to restrict anyone but the author to reconstruct the same materials, like a book for instance?? So it's not so much granting the author a right to his works; it's restricting third-parties from reusing or replicating the works of the creator.It gives the copyright holder a limited monopoly to be able to profit from his works. This was created as an incentive for people to invent and create works of art, writing, etc.

[Gosmokesome]

Yes copy'rights' and patents suck. I'm all for getting rid of them all together.

[acptulsa]

It gives the copyright holder a limited monopoly to be able to profit from his works. This was created as an incentive for people to invent and create works of art, writing, etc.

And without it, I really, really don't see how we could have developed into the world's superpower. Really. So, if their vision was to create a place where people could be not only free, but encouraged to create and make others' lives easier (and there's plenty of evidence that it was), then they were spot on.

What has happened since--meh. Politicians got in bed with corporations. No good could come from that.

[danberkeley]

And without it, I really, really don't see how we could have developed into the world's superpower. Really. So, if their vision was to create a place where people could be not only free, but encouraged to create and make others' lives easier (and there's plenty of evidence that it was), then they were spot on.

What has happened since--meh. Politicians got in bed with corporations. No good could come from that.

Arts and science existed without copyrights and patents. I may be wrong, but Shakespeare created his works without copyrights. Galileo declared the earth not the center of the universe without copyrights or patents. I find it hard to believe that the cotton gin would not have been invented without patents. People would have invented techonologies and processes out of their own self-interest. Their self-interest to make their lives easier and to survive.

One huge problem I see, especially with patents, is that many technologies are invented then prohibited out of the market by its inventors. Huge corporations buy up the patents and restrict the techonologies from the market.

[acptulsa]

Excellent points, Dan. I would still argue, though, that the Twentieth Century would not have been what it was but for the fact that, here in the United States, people were highly motivated to develop good ideas into practicality--even if they had to go hungry here and there to get it done. The promise of wealth is a seductive one, and who knows what inventions would never have happened without it.

Now, as for whether we'd be better off if the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries hadn't been so innovative, well...

[danberkeley]

Now, as for whether we'd be better off if the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries hadn't been so innovative, well...

There is no way to quantify copyright's and patent's effect on us. But from a libertarian prospective, they are a violation of property rights.

[acptulsa]

There is no way to quantify copyright's and patent's effect on us. But from a libertarian prospective, they are a violation of property rights.

I really don't think it's that clear cut. When one has taken the time and done the work to bring a wild theory to fruition, and it saves the labor of hundreds and makes them more productive, should that time and work not be rewarded? After all, both the idea and the work done in development belong to the inventor. Never mind the idea--what about the development? Would you argue that a person who tears down a farmer's fence without stealing or breaking any of the boards or posts, or someone who drives an off-road vehicle all over a farmer's furrows, isn't stealing the farmer's time and productiveness?

[danberkeley]

I really don't think it's that clear cut. When one has taken the time and done the work to bring a wild theory to fruition, and it saves the labor of hundreds and makes them more productive, should that time and work not be rewarded?

Not with a (government-granted) monopoly on something intangible.


After all, both the idea and the work done in development belong to the inventor.

Not the idea. But the physical invention and the physical schematics and so on, yes.


Never mind the idea--what about the development? Would you argue that a person who tears down a farmer's fence without stealing or breaking any of the boards or posts, or someone who drives an off-road vehicle all over a farmer's furrows, isn't stealing the farmer's time and productiveness?

The person is defintely violating property rights by doing so. But I fail to see the analogy.

[heavenlyboy34]

Arts and science existed without copyrights and patents. I may be wrong, but Shakespeare created his works without copyrights. Galileo declared the earth not the center of the universe without copyrights or patents. I find it hard to believe that the cotton gin would not have been invented without patents. People would have invented techonologies and processes out of their own self-interest. Their self-interest to make their lives easier and to survive.

One huge problem I see, especially with patents, is that many technologies are invented then prohibited out of the market by its inventors. Huge corporations buy up the patents and restrict the techonologies from the market.

The cotton gin was patented. ;) http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent/

Shakespeare and Galileo had patrons to make their living, so they were effectively slaves. They would've fared better with a good copyright/patent system (and ours isn't one of them :P).

[danberkeley]

The cotton gin was patented. ;) http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent/

Yes. And?


Shakespeare and Galileo had patrons to make their living, so they were effectively slaves. They would've fared better with a good copyright/patent system (and ours isn't one of them :P).

Besides, who gives a shit about a painting? Can I use it to plow my corn field? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes. And?



Nuffin'. Just sayin. :) Just the facts, ma'am...just the facts.

[danberkeley]

Nuffin'. Just sayin. :) Just the facts, ma'am...just the facts.

"Ma'am"? :mad:

[slothman]

Pre-script: shamelessly "stolen" from a post I made on Slashdot.


This is my idea of how IP should work.
It is my opinion.
I will try not to use works like property and owner since they make it seem like it is the same as physical goods.

First it is my guess, though of course I could be wrong, that the US founders, or at least Jefferson, would agree with me.

Second, it is designed such that an artist monopolizes distribution so only he can make money.
He is not entitled to the money though.
He isn't even entitled to profit.
IP is made so he can make more art;
not so he can make money.

It exists so he doesn't need another job and hence take up time he could use to make more IP.

If he isn't going to make more, for whatever reason, then a job won't take up time he could be using from making more art. He won't anyways.
After his death, for example, a job won't limit his creation time, it is zero already.
For example, MLK's speech "I Have a Dream" is copywritten.
I find it highly unlikely he would want that.

IP laws also won't originally made so works could be inherited or transferred some other way.

Third, it is intended for distribution only. It was not made to prevent you from time or space shifting; nor from backing-up.
The laws weren't even passed to disallow selling, and hence deleting, or the olde-time equivalent, your copy.

If you sell a book you lose both the paper it is made of as well as the text within.
The IP laws, of course, don't apply to the paper and binding but they do apply to the text.
Very few people, well I would hope and guess so, think that the "first-sale doctrine" shouldn't exist.
Ignoring the fact that I could have bought it from someone else instead of the copyright controller, I already gave my money to the artist. I did not prevent them from making money on it, they previously have, though perhaps indirectly though others.

Fourth, I don't think the phrase "intellectual property" should be used. It implies that it is like real property and can be stolen the same way.
Plus the abbreviation is IP which is the same as "internet protocol" and confusing.
I don't know what a good name should be but IP doesn't seem right.

Disclaimer, I do not own any significant IP.
I did make a Tetris program a decade ago but if anyone obtains a copy, such as from my home website, they can do whatever they choose; including de-freewaring it, if the law allows.
Any other stuff I made isn't really completed but the same applies.

P.S. Ironically ,the bottom of /. says, "Comments are owned by the Poster."
Many other sites have similar rules.
I have copied various bits of them for interestingness or humor. I wonder if I could be sued.
I should post them sometimes.
One of my favorites is "It's like a kitten with a tuba, it makes no sense," referring to a useless unique unit in Civ4.
I'm hoping that one catches on.
Everyone who sees this, try to use it yourself and get others to do the same.

If I get good comments I might even try to get it published to the from page of Slashdot


@acptulsa
They should should not be rewarded.
They should try to make money of it but that is not gareunted(sp).

[Matt Collins]

Pre-script: shamelessly "stolen" from a post I made on Slashdot.I love /. I try to read it daily.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Ma'am"? :mad:

Excuse me...I was on a Joe Friday riff there. lol

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm curious as to what you all think about the Constitution declaring

I've been reading up on the critiques of Copyrights/Patents and I must say it's great stuff to read.

Could it be that the Founders were naive in this area and didn't fully understand the implications of that clause in the Constitution?? Or is it just that the Federal Government over the years has lost touch with the classical view of copyrights and patents, and that in fact it's been manipulated from its original intention and purpose??

I think it's ironic given the fact that in order to defend this clause and the Founders' reasoning, you are required to use implied interpretations of the Constitution; whereas the ones who have followed the Constitution on this one issue, like the Federal Government, are using the clause in its strictest form.

Input on this subject would be appreciated!!

I suspect it was a lack of foresight on the Federalists' part. :p Remember, they lived pre-industrial revolution, so inventions and creative work was more difficult. Doing such a thing would've been considered a significant achievement. IMHO, the IP laws need to be eliminated-and let the individuals in the business figure out how to manage itself.

As an artist, I would be more than willing to negotiate a fair price for my work for various utilities (film, concert, etc.). :D

[Blowback]

This is actually one of my favorite topics at the moment. I agree that anyone interested should read Kinsella's book or just watch his lecture on the subject which can be found on mises.org.

Another interesting documentary on the subject i watched was good copy bad copy (can be found on google video i think). It's a very interesting movie that discusses music copyright, the growing culture of mash-ups (which I love), and what things are like in countries without copyright (people still create).

Everyone always talks about the supposed (but never proved and very seldom studied) gains from IP law. The often heard and really only used gain is increased creativity.

Overall though, IP law has more negatives than positives from a utilitarian sense if that's all people care about.

[Flirple]

WE gave ourselves our "current centralized monster". We didn't stay vigilant. What our Founders did help give us was the most free and prosperous nation in the history of mankind. It was US that let it slip away.

Put the blame where it belongs.

Nonsense, the founders themselves almost immediately started disassembling what was achieve in the revolution as Hans Herman Hoppe has so convinsingly shown in his work (see here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3), here (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3), and here (http://www.mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx)).
Yes we all are obligated to do our best to prevent a government from crossing to the dark side. But you can't ignore the fact that when governments are structured a certain way they have distinct characteristics of how they evolve over time. You could rerun history a hundred times starting over from the inception of the constitution and you would very likely see America grow into an imperialistic monster similar to what we have today.

Hoppe, has really changed the way I look at all this. A few years ago I would have agreed with you. But I've come to view public apathy and ignorance as a symptom rather than the disease. Likewise, representative government/democracy as the problem not the solution. I know, I know it's counter-intuitive as hell. But I have to conform to the truth.

[DamianTV]

I dont think the founding fathers were wrong.


... Authors and Inventors ... People, Not Mega Corporations...

[acptulsa]

I dont think the founding fathers were wrong.

People, Not Mega Corporations...

Good point. We are seeing the corporations trying to get and enjoy the benefits of personhood, and little good is coming of it.

[PitViper]

Being a patent holder myself and having various copyrights I have to say that the founding fathers were right in their action. The more I study these men the more profound I find their wisdom and understanding of human nature. Many people try to compare what they know today with them, as if they have greater understanding, when IMHO we are By Far dumbed down compared to their level of understanding regardless of our fancy devices, and atom bombs.

Contrary to popular belief, my patent does not stop you from building my machine, you simply cannot sell it here in the US. However just having my patent application may not give you enough detail to build the device on your own, thus creating the need to secure my services.

If it took me three years of constant effort and my own capital to create a device, I certainly believe anyone is entitled to At Least be reimbursed for such effort. But even with patents, ideas and inventions are STILL stolen, many inventors left broken.

To show you how little patents actually do help, just study Nikola Tesla. Nearly everything radio and electrical up to this very day are based on his patents, yet he died impoverished and despite his impact on mankind, few know of him.

I believe in patents for at least honoring the inventor, such as with Tesla being unknown. I believe there could be patent reform as it is now abused, such as large corporations buying up renewable ideas to maintain their Empire of Waste and Consumption. Devices so sophisticated that the average lab can't build for personal use and study anyway!
I believe in patents for AT LEAST allowing the inventor to break even!!
But I do believe in a cap on time limits, and I also believe in being able to build the device for personal use (one device) without infringement. Which is basically allowable today, it is personal know how that stops many people (labs/shops) in this vein.

IMHO patent reform MUST come AFTER government and business reform, because in a world as corrupt as today, EVERY inventor would be robbed, unknown, and penniless, regardless of the significance of his/her invention, if you disbanded patent law now.

If there was no protection for an inventor from these thieves and tyrants, then NO inventor would develop anything, and if they did they would hide it from everyone.

So YES, the founding fathers ARE encouraging the development of these things, albeit it could be slightly reformed.

Just My Opinion

[heavenlyboy34]

this is exactly right.

Being a patent holder myself and having various copyrights I have to say that the founding fathers were right in their action. The more I study these men the more profound I find their wisdom and understanding of human nature. Many people try to compare what they know today with them, as if they have greater understanding, when IMHO we are By Far dumbed down compared to their level of understanding regardless of our fancy devices, and atom bombs.

Contrary to popular belief, my patent does not stop you from building my machine, you simply cannot sell it here in the US. However just having my patent application may not give you enough detail to build the device on your own, thus creating the need to secure my services.

If it took me three years of constant effort and my own capital to create a device, I certainly believe anyone is entitled to At Least be reimbursed for such effort. But even with patents, ideas and inventions are STILL stolen, many inventors left broken.

To show you how little patents actually do help, just study Nikola Tesla. Nearly everything radio and electrical up to this very day are based on his patents, yet he died impoverished and despite his impact on mankind, few know of him.

I believe in patents for at least honoring the inventor, such as with Tesla being unknown. I believe there could be patent reform as it is now abused, such as large corporations buying up renewable ideas to maintain their Empire of Waste and Consumption. Devices so sophisticated that the average lab can't build for personal use and study anyway!
I believe in patents for AT LEAST allowing the inventor to break even!!
But I do believe in a cap on time limits, and I also believe in being able to build the device for personal use (one device) without infringement. Which is basically allowable today, it is personal know how that stops many people (labs/shops) in this vein.

IMHO patent reform MUST come AFTER government and business reform, because in a world as corrupt as today, EVERY inventor would be robbed, unknown, and penniless, regardless of the significance of his/her invention, if you disbanded patent law now.

If there was no protection for an inventor from these thieves and tyrants, then NO inventor would develop anything, and if they did they would hide it from everyone.

So YES, the founding fathers ARE encouraging the development of these things, albeit it could be slightly reformed.

Just My Opinion

[Flirple]

Great "must read" new article by Jeffrey Tucker about an exciting new book on this exact topic: http://mises.org/story/3298

[heavenlyboy34]

Great "must read" new article by Jeffrey Tucker about an exciting new book on this exact topic: http://mises.org/story/3298

Interesting! Thanks for the post. :)

[nate895]

Exactly. "Intellectual property" rights are an infringement of true property rights, because they allow the original creator to use the State apparatus to control others. I recommend Kinsella's book.

So, I should be able to take a book that someone else produced, and proceed to make money they would have otherwise made by photocopying a ton of copies. I think most people call that stealing, you did little work, but you get the benefit from the work of another.

[heavenlyboy34]

So, I should be able to take a book that someone else produced, and proceed to make money they would have otherwise made by photocopying a ton of copies. I think most people call that stealing, you did little work, but you get the benefit from the work of another.

In a laissez-faire society, you would face peer ostracism for this. You would lose all credibility and your customers would demand their money back. (a laissez-faire society would be necessary for repeal of IP to work, as far as I know right now. Someone here may convince me otherwise.)

[Andrew-Austin]

Some might see intellectual property, as a stimulant for innovation and economic growth. The government is supposedly giving people more incentive to invent stuff, as they will have a monopoly on the inventions production. Even if it is true that IP is good for the economy (which can be disputed), its still not the governments business to mettle in the economy even to encourage growth, that is not laissez-faire.

Coercive monopolies cannot suddenly be deemed okay just to benefit the glorious inventor.



So, I should be able to take a book that someone else produced, and proceed to make money they would have otherwise made by photocopying a ton of copies. I think most people call that stealing, you did little work, but you get the benefit from the work of another.

The writer should be flattered and happy his ideas were valuable enough in the eyes of others to be reproduced.

Maybe if people didn't come up with ideas solely to make money, there would be less bullshit in the world.



In a laissez-faire society, you would face peer ostracism for this.

I think so. Though people would ostracize you not for making money, but for claiming to be the author of the text.

See plagiarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism).

An example for Christians. Just imagine someone holding a government enforced monopoly on the right to produce/sell the bible. The "word of God" is for everyone right? Of course it is, just as ideas are for everyone. Now if I sold the text of the bible, and claimed to be the sole author, no shit I would be ostracized. Imagine the same for any important/historical text.