Refreshing myself, I find the public policy argument persuasive, but I am surprised to see it in a libertarian venue, which generally holds a more favorable view towards individual rights rather than social implications. I do not find the ethical argument in the last screed very compelling. Copyright laws do not prevent you from sharing information. I can, for example, lend someone a book, or relate my recollection of the work. What I cannot do is claim ownership, in order to profit from it, or engage in activity clearly depriving the author or his heirs of royalties, such as mechanically copying without permission. Even then, there are fair- use situations, and the unlikelihood that police will be on the look out for minor infractions. The exceptions to copyright restriction are notable. For example, one has the broad right to use elements of a copyrighted work for purposes of parody, that is, when clearly refashioned as a separate work. Again, one has the right to disseminate lyrics when they are the result of one's recollections, rather than directly copying from a certified text. These exceptions are obviously carved out to meet the kinds of objections the author of the essay makes, while preserving the general right to profit from the results of one's own labor. I do think that without a "common good" element, the limits are not properly determinable, but that is not the focus of the last author.
More interesting is his contention that patent is inherently unfair to the alternative inventor merely beaten to the punch in registering his invention. However, it is no more unfair than most forms of competition, where one might invest heavily and fail to reap a profit because someone else had an edge. If two people have the same idea for the use of a commercial property, but the first obtains financing quickly, and is able to buy the property before the other, we do not say that the "also ran" has a title because he had the same idea, but was beaten to the punch.
I do not think that there is a libertarian argument, per se, for the denial of copyright passing to one's heirs. There is a "common good" argument, which holds that the incentive to create is maintained by a fixed limit of years, while the reversion to public domain enriches the general culture, by making it less costly to disseminate classics. Fairness for the individual does not absolutely require honoring a wish to bequeath intellectual property, if the consequences seem baneful. |
