 |
Links: New Scholarship: Copyright Is Property |
|
 |
 |
Posted by Steven Wu on Wednesday, January 28 @ 15:12:08 EST
|
|
|
 |
 |
Professor Adam Mossoff has uploaded an article entitled "Is Copyright Property? A Comment on Richard Epstein's Liberty vs. Property," in which he argues against the view that copyright is not a property entitlement but instead a privilege granted to promote the policy of advancing science and the useful arts. From the abstract:
By assuming their rallying cry that "copyright is policy, not property," this essay reveals that opponents of digital copyright are caught in a dilemma of their own making. In one sense, their claim that "copyright is policy, not property," is an uninformative truism about all legal entitlements, and in another sense, represents a fundamental misconception of the history and concept of copyright. The concept and historical development of copyright are more substantial than its representation today as merely a monopoly privilege issued to authors according to the government's utility calculus. The essay concludes with the observation that those who wish to see copyright eliminated or largely restricted in digital media are in fact driven by an impoverished concept of property that has dominated twentieth-century discourse on property generally. As a doctrine in transition - we are still in the midst of the digital revolution-copyright may be criticized for various fits and starts in its application to new areas, but the transition itself does not change copyright's status as a property entitlement.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: New Scholarship: Copyright Is Property (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 @ 16:03:00 EST | Interesting stuff.
I'm sorry that Mossoff wants to talk about "Internet exceptionalists" as if the objection to copyright as property were something new with the Internet. It isn't. Those of us who object to copyright as property were already objecting before the Internet came along, and would still be doing so even if the Internet didn't exist. For instance, Thomas Jefferson wrote a good statement of the "copyright is not property" argument in 1813. Would Mossoff claim that Jefferson was an "Internet exceptionalist", trying to evaluate the Internet at a different standard from other media? Mossoff quotes that very document, but nonetheless insists that we insist digital media are special. Maybe someone thinks digital media are special, but I don't.
He further claims that "Internet exceptionalists" are blind to the fact that the "copyright is property" theory has existed for a long time. Not so. I don't quote that side much in my writings because my writings are mostly designed to promote my own side, not to merely appreciate the battle from a historical perspective. I'm nonetheless aware that this debate has existed for a long time. Jefferson wouldn't have been talking about this stuff if there weren't others making the opposing points. I don't agree with Mark Twain's 7 December 1906 speech on this topic, but I am certainly aware that he made it.
Matthew Skala - read my web log! |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Headline: Constitution not substantial (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 @ 16:32:26 EST | So the "promote" clause is meaningless because copyrights were originally more of a property grant than a tool to encourage publication? Whatever. The supposed "digital copyright restrictors" really want copyright in digital forms to act like traditional copyright rather than granting additional uncheck rights to copyright holders. Non-digital copyrights were more balance and designed to take into account common usage. The DMCA and other copyright extensions do not, and because of that, they will ultimately fail. I think we are living in a period of time where increasing copyright protection is being granted to placate shrill claims that computers are destroying profits. But this period will not last any longer than the culture of those companies making the claims. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: New Scholarship: Copyright Is Property (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Friday, January 30 @ 22:23:19 EST | Actually there are "internet exceptionalists" on the other side as well. Some people argue that the internet will reduce the need for things like fair use exceptions. The idea is that the copyright statutes are designed around market failures, but that the internet lowers transaction costs and so these failures aren't as important. For example, there could be an active, two-way negotiation involved in every purchase of a license to view copyrighted material, something which would be impossible without the net.
There is also the thread of thought which argues that technological measures like Digital Rights Management can substitute for copyright and would not be bound by the various exemptions. On this view, much of the debate about copyright could be rendered irrelevant through technological change. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|