2004.05.26

Copyright Monopoly

Today bOING bOING posted an article giving some critiques of copyright. It basically says that copyright as practiced today is not an incentive for people to create but a creation of a monopoly. Monopolies are antithetical to our market driven economy.

Who’s to say that I can’t market and sell Mickey Mouse better than Disney does? That’s a rhetorical question, but I think there are companies that could. In a free market you would imagine that the more competition there is over a product, the more innovation there would be and the price would drop. For example, if I build a mouse trap, and then you build a better mouse trap for less cost than mine, you’d soon see me working hard to create an even better mouse trap that would cost less than your pithy attempt.

Some would say that intellectual property (IP) is different because it’s an intangible thing. This isn’t true. If I write a song, and you write a song based on it but that is much better (specifically in terms of sales) I should have two options. 1) I can make the song even better so no one is interested in your version anymore or 2) concede defeat and accept some sort of royalty payment that is reasonable.

Yet the reality is that if I were to make a movie with a character named Carver Cat and you made reference to Carver Cat I would sue you for all you’re worth. I would sue anyone making reference to Carver Cat inperpetuity because that is what our (stupid) legislators in Congress have allowed me to do. Never mind that I am not doing anything with Carver Cat and nor shall I ever again. I have a monopoly for life on Carver Cat just as Disney does for Mickey Mouse.

So again, I wonder whether someone could sue the monopoly Disney has for Mickey Mouse? After all, we have anti-trust laws in the books…

Categorized: media   rights   thoughts

You can follow any responses to this entry with a RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

4 Responses to “Copyright Monopoly”

1. Uncle Roger says  (January 1st, 1970 at 08:00:00 )

   The reason for copyright…
   

   if I build a mouse trap, and then you build a better mouse trap

   Mousetraps would be patents, but the concept is analogous. Say you spend 10 years staying up all night and working every weekend, pouring everything into developing your mousetrap, you bring it to market, and it start to take off. (It is, after all, a better mousetrap.) I see that, start making identical mousetraps, and now half your business (aka profits) are going to me. Suppose that 20 other people do the same, and now you’re not making anything. You’ve mortgaged your home, borrowed from family, and put your entire life savings into developing the mousetrap, and even though it’s selling like crazy, you’re not making anything off it. You go bankrupt, loose everything, end up divorced, homeless…

   Given that scenario, why would you bother trying to invent anything? Now, suppose if you invent something truly new, you get the exclusive right to profit from your work for some period of time (I forget what it is, exactly, these days)? Now you’ve got some incentive — some assurance that if your idea is indeed a good one, you will be given the opportunity to at least recoup your financial investment, if not your time as well.

   With copyright, it’s the same thing. Sure, there typically isn’t as much monetary investment, but there is certainly investment of time and effort.

   With patentable ideas, someone else can indeed make a better doohickey, even improving upon yours, getting a patent (and the protection) for the improvement. And that’s only fair. The improvement required work to develop as well.

   With a song, however, it is extremely difficult to base your work on someone else’s without copying it. Yes, you can take a theme and rework it (lots of folks have done variations on Twinkle, Twinkle, for example) or you can say “Gee, I’d like to try writing a piece in 5/4 time!” and that’s fine — you’re being inspired by something else. But if you just copy someone else’s song and change the words, you’re not contributing anything that warrants you being rewarded.

   As a disclaimer, I’m working on a couple of books, have written music (bad music), and written poetry (well, doggerel, actually). On the other hand, I once wrote a song and was very proud of myself at how easily the music came out and how good it sounded — until I realized that I had just “written” Sting’s “I hope the Russians love their children too”. Anyway, I do have a vested interest in copyright.

   Also, as a programmer, the same concepts apply. I don’t want to write a nifty program and then have someone else come along and steal the program to steal my income. Mind you, if they do the work to develop a similar program, on their own, from scratch, then that’s fine, and again, your better, better, better theory works.

2. Uncle Roger says  (January 1st, 1970 at 08:00:00 )

   Oops…

   I talk too much. Basically, if you do the work, you should be able to reap the rewards. Copyright and patents make certain that you have the opportunity to do so.

3. dugh says  (January 1st, 1970 at 08:00:00 )

   and i do agree
   i’m also a musician and write music and… stuff. however the issue with copyright in specific is that it practically never ends. i’ve written about copyright on many occassions, but perhaps this one would be most pertinent.

   too often i assume whoever reads this stuff kows what i’m talking about already, or has read what i’ve written previously. i guess that’s not so realistic anymore given this thing spans many years and many hundreds of entries.

   i agree completely that people need a period of time to exploit their work for some amount of time whether as a copyright or as a patent. however now copyright is effectively forever thanks to disney (which is why i pick on them in particular). it’s ridiculous and out of control. that’s my opinion that is widely shared.

   further i think that laws have been arranged so it is too simple for copyright holders to claim something is infringing. there’s a whole litany of abuses on both sides, but in the digital age especially there is a need for serious reform of the copyright (or as many call it “copywrong”) system.

   for a good place to start reading up on it i’d recommend the lessig blog by one of the great minds in modern copyright, or try visiting the creative commons. and with that i think i’ll close this particular copyright!

4. Sean says  (January 1st, 1970 at 08:00:00 )

   People can improve on other peoples’ work, and sometimes they can also do shitty things based on other peoples’ efforts. At a *minimum*, I think it is fair, and indeed, necessary, to fully enforce copyright and/or patent laws as long as the creator of pertinent works is alive. As well, I think businesses (production companies, etc.) have a right to a reasonable “exclusive” period. Beyond that, it gets a bit murky…licensing, estates, etc. Disney is fucking crazy (and greedy), though, I’ll give you that.

   One thing’s certain: I sure as Hell want full copyright protection for anything I have a hand in. At least until I’m dead, that is.