Re: Extending copyright to last forever?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: May 21, 2007 1:22:14 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Extending copyright to last forever?

Given the general "libertarian" views held by most Farber readers,  
this may not go over well, but here goes:

Rather than "forever copyright", I've always wondered why we  
shouldn't take the idea of "limited duration" to other forms of  
property rights.

Here's the reason:   a new child is born into the US every few  
seconds.   Despite our egalitarian views, he or she is born into the  
world in a very *unfair* state of things.  Depending on who the  
child's parents are, the child stands to inherit resources (monetary,  
property, educational, cultural, and even skin color) that can vary  
in value from a large negative Net Present Value (child born to  
illegal immigrants) to a large positive one (Bill Gates' child).

This seems to create a huge problem of equity among US citizens at  
day 0 (whether or not you count that day at conception or at birth -  
this is not a religious right issue).

Inheritable property rights exacerbate this issue hugely, but we must  
also be aware that children do need support lest their parents die.

So the logical solution is to make property rights for all property  
(land, etc.) last a limited period, after which they go away -  
perhaps becoming public domain.

This works extremely well for synthetic property rights (such as the  
right to a sequence of letters fixed on a page or a sequence of  
musical notes).

In particular, it limits the accumulation of "dynastic wealth" -  
where people who have had no role in the creation of any useful  
results for society are granted free lifetime passes to eat and fly  
private jets merely because of which coital act they resulted from.

On another day, I may outline the same virtue for limited-duration  
corporations.   Suffice it to say that if people die, "synthetic  
persons" who share the rights of real people should probably not get  
the benefit of potential eternal life.

Should they?

In any case, emotional appeals to poor kids who will starve if they  
don't inherit daddy's royalty stream should be countered by arguments  
that focus equally on the inheritance issue, in addition to the  
"natural moral right to property in expression" issue.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com