My view of intellectual property
The purpose of legal intellectual property protections, simply put, is to help make it a good decision to create something. The specific phrasing in the United States Constitution is
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;
but that’s just a longer way of saying the same thing.
Why does “securing … exclusive Right[s]” to the creators of things that are patented, copyrighted, or trademarked help make it a good decision for them to create stuff? Because it averts competition from copiers, thus making the creator a monopolist in what s/he has created, allowing her to at least somewhat value-price her creation.
I.e., the core point of intellectual property rights is to prevent copying-based competition. By way of contrast, any other kind of intellectual property “right” should be viewed with great suspicion.
Examples of my views include:
- In a recent comment I pooh-poohed an expansive interpretation of the GPL, even as I supported the GPL in core cases.
- I believe that most kinds of software patents are or should be invalid, but I’m willing to make an exception for innovative user experiences.
- I believe in copyright, even though I agree with consensus that in many cases copyright-holders’ business models will evolve away from the licensing of intellectual property. For example, I’m mightily annoyed when somebody claims my words as their own. But I give mine away for free. I just want to get the reputational benefit of what I write, and also to aggregate comments on my original blog posts rather than having them go to some other site.
Comments
6 Responses to “My view of intellectual property”
Leave a Reply
[…] even forbidding plug-compatible reverse engineering. I agree with Doug up to the point that it should be forbidden to copy proprietary software, but I don’t see why he (or a court) would view such behavior as copying. Categories: […]
Another good article. The difference is do you create for reputation of profit?
Tim,
I build my reputation largely for the sake of making a profit on the services I do charge money for. 🙂
An increasingly important secondary use, at least potentially, is that it helps me Do Good.
Egoboo is #3 on my list of reasons.
Best,
CAM
Do you believe in copyright protections as they are currently enacted in this country or just in the concept that original authorship should have some level of protection? Long ago, it would often take many years to realize a benefit from creating something. With our plethora of means of communication and monetizing works, providing a duration of protection of 10 years would be unlikely to dissuade a material amount of authorship. So why has the duration of protection increased from less than 30 years in 1800 to between 70 and 120 years in 2011?
I believe that current copyright protections are unconstitutional based upon the clause you noted above. The extreme levels of protection afforded original works discourages derivative and new works from being created. Why create new works when you can sell the old ones forever?
I imagine any duration of copyright protection would be Constitutional. Less clear to me is why Congress should extend duration on rights ALREADY granted, but they have wiggle room there in that new works are created based on old characters, and so on.
Whether long durations are WISE public policy is a separate matter.
[…] I wrote 3 1/2 years ago: The purpose of legal intellectual property protections, simply put, is to help make it a good […]