Law
commentary on the Law
Thursday, March 07, 2002
Intellectual Property: a contradiction in terms
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
—Thomas Jefferson
The Copyright Clause does two things. First, it empowers Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Second, the text of the Copyright Clause limits the means that Congress may adopt in exercising the enumerated power. Congress is limited to granting rights to authors for "limited Times" - there can be no perpetual ownership of intellectual property.
—The Mouse That Ate the Public Domain, Chris Sprigman
The language in the Constitution seems cut and dried to me. Despite looking for one, I have yet to read a compelling argument for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. I need to read more; I find it interesting that there are few articles published in its favor.
Of those given, the argument that
It rewards authors and their families, providing an income stream for the authors' children and grandchildren (as copyright law has long intended).
—Amicus for Appellees, Sherwood Anderson Foundation et al.
is the most troubling, because of my sympathies with those parties. I, too, would like to grant my heirs and assigns rights to my works. But I do not think that such grants, extending past the span of my life, would "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."