Of course,the straight libertarian position is that property is property, and it is heritable, and therefore that copyrights and patents should exist in perpetuity, although, in practice, they are not fully enforceable, as when Xeroxes are made without permission. Limitation of copyright is based on a calculation of social, or common, good. The case is especially strong with patents, or copyrights of software. Invention can be impeded if there is not an eventual introduction of such material into the public domain, so that codes and design features could stimulate development.
But even with literature, the idea that no one can put a stranglehold on the use of a book, or make one run through discouraging hoops, as my wife once had to do to get permission to copy T S Eliot's "Notes Towards a Definition of Culture" from his widow, for use in a seminar, so that knowledge and opinion may freely circulate, is invigorating. (Mrs. Eliot insisted upon personal approval, not merely a licensing fee, and therefore held up the process nearly to the date of the intended seminar).
A reasonable calculation would be to consider when the value of the copyright is so diluted that the probable disadvantage to any heirs would be modest compared to the public benefit. In such a case, conserving the copyright beyond the first generation of heirs is unwise.
With patents, the question becomes, in addition, how long can one permit a monopoly without deleterious consequences. There might, of course, be a transitional solution, requiring licensing of an innovation to competitors after a certain term, with eventual devolution to the public domain. It is unlikely that society can afford to preserve the patent for the heirs, in most cases.
Anyway, I find it interesting to see a clear cut instance where the idea of the common good plays a useful normative role, and counters the absolute assertion of property rights...... |
