The Case For Perpetual Copyright

Several readers sent in a link to an op-ed in the NYTimes by novelist Mark Halprin, who lays out the argument for what amounts to perpetual copyright. He says that anything less is essentially an unfair public taking of property: "No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind." This community can surely supply a plethora of arguments for the public domain, words which don't appear in the op-ed. In a similar vein, reader benesch sends us to the BBC for a tale of aging pop performers (virtually) serenading Parliament in favor of extending copyright for recording artists in the UK. Some performers are likely to outlive the current protections, now fixed at a mere 50 years.
Update: 05/20 22:50 GMT by KD : Podcaster writes to let us know that the copyright reform community is crafting a reply over at Lawrence Lessig's wiki.

Comments

Authors

[guinsu]

Why is it always authors who come down as the hardest advocates of strict copyrights? I'm not trolling, it just seems that among musicians (classical and pop), painters, photographers, etc there is way less of this mentality of locking everything down and severely punishing anyone who steps out of line. It is especially disappointing among sci-fi authors. For instance we had Harlan Ellison suing AOL for the contents of the newsgroups and dragging that out for like 5 years (it could still be going on now for all I know). Then I believe it was SM Stirling (I could have the author wrong) ranting that people who upload his novels to newsgroups deserve to be anally raped in prison. It is sad since these people are supposed to have, you know, a bit of vision. My only guess is authors are so used to getting screwed by their publishers and don't get to interact with their fan base the way a musician might they are led down this RIAA-like path where they feel the only way to protect themselves is to lock things down entirely. Either that or its just all about the money for an author.

Obviously there are exceptions, people like Neil Stephenson have certainly embraced the future (well more like the present).

two words: "Property Taxes"

[stabiesoft]

The author forgets that tangible objects are taxed at their current valuation. Copyrighted objects rarely are. Another minor fact the author missed is even property can be eminent domain'ed away, or if a govt collapses completely, the new govt will likely re-distribute the land. Ask the indians.

Re:two words: "Property Taxes"

[zappepcs]

You just hit the nail on the head. If they want copyrights in perpetuity, I say we should also tax that property of theirs. Owning a masterpiece of artwork is owning an asset and applicable taxes are then applied. Same should go for copyright holders and patent holders. After a very limited time of tax relief on their 'property' it becomes a taxable asset unless they release it to the public domain. That should balance out the benefit to public vs. royalty issues on things that have gone past any verifiable value of private ownership of such 'intellectual properties' as are currently under debate.

Re:Kill Disney

[tsa]

Speaking of Disney and copyrights, I found a nice movie about copyrights made from small parts of Disney cartoons on BoingBoing, here.

Re:There is no intellectual property

[joe 155]

I agree completely. I would just add a quote I heard some time ago...

"If I have an apple and and you have an apple and we swap we will each have one apple. If I have an idea and you have an idea and we swap we now each have two ideas."

Surely this is how intellectual "property" should work.