Could Eminent Domain Break The RIAA Stranglehold?

Thales_of_Miletus writes "Findlaw has an editorial today on fashioning a compulsory licensing scheme (the IP version of the real property eminent domain takings power)to allow third-party online music distribution to proceed without the RIAA's permission. Thoughtful arguments are made about the role of IP in a free society and restoring the public benefit function of copyright."

Comments

Re:A particularly interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

There have always been holes in history. There always will be holes in history.

A photographer friend of mine a few years back told me of a drunken party he took place in back in the late 50's. A collection of original glass plates of photographs of American Indians had been found, and people were having fun by throwing them to the floor and smashing them. (this is a real story, not flamebait). Shit like that happens all the time. Beautiful buildings are torn down. Big archives of magazines or books are cleared away for recycling.

That's life. The day we decide all of everything has to be 'preserved' for historical purposes is the day history stops. They pour in the formaldehyde and we all die.

Deal with it.

Eminent Domain

[Arandir]

Eminent Domain is a process whereby the *government* pays the property holder for forced takings. "We're building a freeway through your yard, you can't do anything about it because we own the cops, but the Constitution does require us to at least pay you for it."

The New York Times and other publishers are NOT the government. They should not get the benefit of Eminent Domain. The consequences would turn all of property law on its head.

Consider the implications if this were extended to other non-governmental organizations, or even individuals. "We want to build a hotel on your beachfront property, which has been in your family for five generations, and you must sell to us by law." "We want to take over your company, and your stockholders refuse to sell, tough shit!" "Sorry Bob, I'm going to move your fence three feet closer to your house, and you can't stop me."

Or the really scary one if you're an Open Souce fan: "We will use your kernel in our OS despite your objections, but we will pay you market price for it."

Why have we let ourselves get into this mess?

[ericfitz]

As has been stated in numerous posts every time the intellectual property issue comes up on slashdot, the framers of the Constitution were against "Intellectual Property". The idea of an idea being property is as silly now as it was then. Patent and copyright were [rightfully] deemed necessary for SHORT periods of time to help promote the arts. Our legislature has repeatedly failed to exercise due diligence in maintaining the balance between a limited monopoly to promote the arts, and between the rights of the citizenry. Everything is speeding up- books are routinely published overnight- yet for some reason the terms of patents and copyright are going the opposite direction.

We only need one reform: incredibly short terms for patents and copyright. Although any decision is arbitrary, I think that 3 years is more than generous enough in the case of copyright these days, and that 7-10 years is more than generous enough in the case of patent.

wrong

[Ender Ryan]

"Copyrights do not exist to provide works to the "public at large" they exist to protect the works and allow those who created them to garner value from their work without someone else ripping them off."

That is false. Copyright exists solely for the purpose of promoting progress. Read the Constitution.

Freedom of Association

[briancarnell]

But this violates my right to choose who I associate with.

For example, a few years ago an essay I wrote about rape was stolen and put on a porn site, because it did well in search engine searches on "rape."

Now even if the porn site were willing to pay me $1,000 for that short article, I would not be interested in granting them a license to publish.

But once you get into compulsory licensing, this sort of discretion goes completely out the Window, and creative types can no longer choose for themselves who they will associate with.

A particularly interesting quote

[hillct]

It looks like Ginburg was looking to prevent and Orwellian (1984-style) scenerio here:

Why did the Court suggest possible limits on the freelancers' property right? Because the majority was responding to the concern that there would be "holes in history" created by the removal of the freelancers' important work from electronic databases.

This is actually a legitimate point. ALthough we are not operating at this level yet, there will eventually be a time when databases of this sort will replace the microfiche archives of newspapers like the New York Times that libraries pay an arm and a leg for now. If articles which appeared in the newspaper were omitted from the online database, there would indeed be 'holes in history' - presuming that the New York Times is the definitive record of history - which in and of itself is a frightning thought.

--CTH