[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[Neil R. Ormos]

Jordan Bettis wrote:

> Too many times, the argument is that the 'artists deserve
> to be paid' or that the authors 'deserve'
> something. People think that their business model aught to
> be protected because it's worked up until that point.

I won't comment about protecting "business models", but I
would urge that preserving people's expectations about the
operation of law and public policy, by avoiding
step-function changes in same, is generally a good thing.
Preserving expectations allows people to make plans and
investments over the long term, and encourages negotiation
and cooperative behavior, which IMO are generally
beneficial.  The alternative is to induce people to attempt
to instantaneously extract maximum value from all assets,
lest the legal and regulatory framework change to their
detriment, which behavior generally creates a set of very
unpleasant externalities.

> This completely bastardizes the concept of Copyright and
> Patents from being *only* to provide the possibility of
> financial gain as an incentive to create into something of
> a birthright.

But from what authority is this concept derived?

Even if Congress' were limited in creating copyright and
patent rights to the justification language in the
Constitutional grant ("[t]o 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;"), that language is conveniently
silent about "the possibility of financial gain as an
incentive", and does not define what "progress" and "limited
times" mean.  Thus, it would seem Congress has a lot of
latitude in creating a birthright, as long as it's not
perpetual.

Moreover, copyright was available to authors under English
common law.  There are those who argue that the grant clause
in the U.S. constitution was merely an indication that
authority over this regulatory area was to be allocated to
the National government, not to the several states, and thus
the grant language was inclusive but not exclusive or
limiting.