New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 29, 2004

David G. Post reviews Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | New at Reason →

See all 4 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Warren|11.29.04 @ 8:08PM|#

Article online before I wake up, H&R Post after 18:00

Anywho... Great article. I've been touting the idea that we should scrap copyright altogether. However, I'd be happy to return to a system that "protected only "books, maps and charts" (intentionally excluding songs, paintings, dramatic performances, speeches, newspaper articles, and so on); it protected them only against duplication in the same medium (intentionally excluding translations, dramatizations, adaptations, and the like); and it did so for no more than 14 years."

|11.29.04 @ 8:29PM|#

Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Given the same or similar information, a thousand people can come up with the very same idea.

I can steal your car. But I can't steal your idea.

|11.29.04 @ 9:11PM|#

However, I'd be happy to return to a system that "protected only "books, maps and charts" (intentionally excluding songs, paintings, dramatic performances, speeches, newspaper articles, and so on);

When that copyright law was passed, it was impossible to record and perfectly reproduce a musical or dramatic performance; and reproducing a painting would take nearly as much work as producing the original.

Like it or not, copyright law has to change with advances in copying technology. Had the printing press not been invented, there would have been no need for copyrights on books.

|11.29.04 @ 11:45PM|#

There is a fundamental difference between normal property and so-called intellectual property (patents and copyrights) that is often overlooked. Property is by its nature something that can only be used by one person or entity at a time. That is why the need arises for one person to control it, so as to prevent conflict and create responsibility for its management. Examples of this include cars, cds (the actual disc), and even pieces of the radio spectrum (where multiple signals would interfere). Intellectual property on the other hand can be copied. If I copy the information on a cd then the copy can be used completely independently of the original. My use of a copy doesn't prevent or interfere with your use of the original, as it would with "real" property. I believe that this understanding of the fundamental distinction is important in formulating laws concerning copyright and patent protections. I still think that some protections are needed as incentive, but they can not be allowed to prevent the creative expression of others.

Also, as far as the issue of having a mandatory licensing scheme for online music goes, EFF has a similar proposal that would do the same thing but as a private sector affair in the form of voluntary collective licensing. Seems like a really good deal for everyone if the record industry would just give it a try. It is apparently how radio stations pay record companies now. http://www.eff.org/share/?f=collective_lic_wp.html