Comments on: Artists, Property Rights and Andrew Jackson

By: JJ Biener

JJ Biener — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:49:23 +0000

Mr Davis, the tangible/intangible argument is interesting, but at its most fundamental level, it breaks down. A CD is a tangible item. The music on the CD is intangible. No one would buy a blank CD for $18. It is the music on the CD, the intangible portion, that give the CD value.

If you remove the music from the CD, the value of the music doesn’t change. If you make a copy of that music, you are depriving the copyright holder of that value. It doesn’t matter if the piece of plastic no longer exists, the value of the music still does, otherwise you wouldn’t be copying it.

You wrote, “even if I use your copyright … you are not impaired in your use of i[t]“. This simply isn’t true by definition. If you use my copyright, you diminish my ability to use it. You may think a single copy is insignificant, but what happens when a million people do it. Then the value of the copyright is gone.

If you still aren’t convinced, look at it this way. A car is a combination of raw materials and the effort to transform them. That effort has value or the car wouldn’t be worth any more than the raw materials, and the workers wouldn’t get paid for what they do.

A piece music doesn’t require raw materials, but it does require effort. That effort has value just as it does with the car. When you copy a piece of music or any other intellectual property, you are denying the copyright holder the value of that effort.

In other words, it really is as simple as “copyright is property.” I am just amazed people are willing to go to such contortions to try to deny it.

By: Dave Davis

Dave Davis — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:55:23 +0000

In tangible property, there are basically two kinds. Chattel property (like a pair of shoes or a monkey wrench) and real estate. Copyright – while it is a form of property – is importantly different from these since it is intangible and, more importantly, even if I use your copyright (i.e. I make a copy of something), you are not impaired in your use of if. If I have your car or your monkey wrench, you can’t use it while I have it. (Economists such as Hal Varian talk about non-rivalrous uses in this context) With reference to real estate, there are legitmate uses – non-permissioned I may make of your property, as long as I work within hunting regulations for example and don’t break any other laws. These might be compared to fair use. Bottom line: A simple assertion to the effect that “copyright is property, and that settles it” makes no more sense than the statement “Property is thieft, and that settles it.” It is not settled at all, and the matter requires nuance to be discussed intelligently.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:23:25 +0000

Andrew Jackson? Really?!! Wow, at least you didn’t use David Duke for an analogy!
The economy is down in the U.S. and throughout the world; as artists and publishers we may want to consider dropping our prices to the point where it’s not worth it to steal, and promote formats such as Pandora. Just a thought.

By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Social Networking and Copyright

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:34:44 +0000

[...] for the fact that this blog is turning into a literature review column, with recent posts on Jon Meacham’s “American Lion” and Paul Starr’s “The Creation of the Media.” I guess I’m subconsciously [...]

By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Copyright and Free Speech

The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Copyright and Free Speech — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:07:09 +0000

[...] Artists, Property Rights and Andrew Jackson [...]

By: John Gordon

John Gordon — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:33:42 +0000

If property rights should trump “progress” to the point that such rights should never be “eroded” (i.e. be limited so as to accommodate other values) then how do you explain the words of Article I of the Constitution? According to the text of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make copyright law in order to promote “progress.” Not because of Lockean natural rights.

Also, if you believe that there should be copyright but that it needs more sensible limits and exceptions, does it follow that you “take progress as a priority over all else?”