Were the Founders wrong? The Constitution and Copyrights

danberkeley said:
Arts and science existed without copyrights and patents. I may be wrong, but Shakespeare created his works without copyrights. Galileo declared the earth not the center of the universe without copyrights or patents. I find it hard to believe that the cotton gin would not have been invented without patents. People would have invented techonologies and processes out of their own self-interest. Their self-interest to make their lives easier and to survive.

One huge problem I see, especially with patents, is that many technologies are invented then prohibited out of the market by its inventors. Huge corporations buy up the patents and restrict the techonologies from the market.
Click to expand...

The cotton gin was patented. ;) http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent/

Shakespeare and Galileo had patrons to make their living, so they were effectively slaves. They would've fared better with a good copyright/patent system (and ours isn't one of them :P).
 
Pre-script: shamelessly "stolen" from a post I made on Slashdot.


This is my idea of how IP should work.
It is my opinion.
I will try not to use works like property and owner since they make it seem like it is the same as physical goods.

First it is my guess, though of course I could be wrong, that the US founders, or at least Jefferson, would agree with me.

Second, it is designed such that an artist monopolizes distribution so only he can make money.
He is not entitled to the money though.
He isn't even entitled to profit.
IP is made so he can make more art;
not so he can make money.

It exists so he doesn't need another job and hence take up time he could use to make more IP.

If he isn't going to make more, for whatever reason, then a job won't take up time he could be using from making more art. He won't anyways.
After his death, for example, a job won't limit his creation time, it is zero already.
For example, MLK's speech "I Have a Dream" is copywritten.
I find it highly unlikely he would want that.

IP laws also won't originally made so works could be inherited or transferred some other way.

Third, it is intended for distribution only. It was not made to prevent you from time or space shifting; nor from backing-up.
The laws weren't even passed to disallow selling, and hence deleting, or the olde-time equivalent, your copy.

If you sell a book you lose both the paper it is made of as well as the text within.
The IP laws, of course, don't apply to the paper and binding but they do apply to the text.
Very few people, well I would hope and guess so, think that the "first-sale doctrine" shouldn't exist.
Ignoring the fact that I could have bought it from someone else instead of the copyright controller, I already gave my money to the artist. I did not prevent them from making money on it, they previously have, though perhaps indirectly though others.

Fourth, I don't think the phrase "intellectual property" should be used. It implies that it is like real property and can be stolen the same way.
Plus the abbreviation is IP which is the same as "internet protocol" and confusing.
I don't know what a good name should be but IP doesn't seem right.

Disclaimer, I do not own any significant IP.
I did make a Tetris program a decade ago but if anyone obtains a copy, such as from my home website, they can do whatever they choose; including de-freewaring it, if the law allows.
Any other stuff I made isn't really completed but the same applies.

P.S. Ironically ,the bottom of /. says, "Comments are owned by the Poster."
Many other sites have similar rules.
I have copied various bits of them for interestingness or humor. I wonder if I could be sued.
I should post them sometimes.
One of my favorites is "It's like a kitten with a tuba, it makes no sense," referring to a useless unique unit in Civ4.
I'm hoping that one catches on.
Everyone who sees this, try to use it yourself and get others to do the same.

If I get good comments I might even try to get it published to the from page of Slashdot


@acptulsa
They should should not be rewarded.
They should try to make money of it but that is not gareunted(sp).
 
socialize_me said:
I'm curious as to what you all think about the Constitution declaring

I've been reading up on the critiques of Copyrights/Patents and I must say it's great stuff to read.

Could it be that the Founders were naive in this area and didn't fully understand the implications of that clause in the Constitution?? Or is it just that the Federal Government over the years has lost touch with the classical view of copyrights and patents, and that in fact it's been manipulated from its original intention and purpose??

I think it's ironic given the fact that in order to defend this clause and the Founders' reasoning, you are required to use implied interpretations of the Constitution; whereas the ones who have followed the Constitution on this one issue, like the Federal Government, are using the clause in its strictest form.

Input on this subject would be appreciated!!
Click to expand...

I suspect it was a lack of foresight on the Federalists' part. :p Remember, they lived pre-industrial revolution, so inventions and creative work was more difficult. Doing such a thing would've been considered a significant achievement. IMHO, the IP laws need to be eliminated-and let the individuals in the business figure out how to manage itself.

As an artist, I would be more than willing to negotiate a fair price for my work for various utilities (film, concert, etc.). :D
 
This is actually one of my favorite topics at the moment. I agree that anyone interested should read Kinsella's book or just watch his lecture on the subject which can be found on mises.org.

Another interesting documentary on the subject i watched was good copy bad copy (can be found on google video i think). It's a very interesting movie that discusses music copyright, the growing culture of mash-ups (which I love), and what things are like in countries without copyright (people still create).

Everyone always talks about the supposed (but never proved and very seldom studied) gains from IP law. The often heard and really only used gain is increased creativity.

Overall though, IP law has more negatives than positives from a utilitarian sense if that's all people care about.
 
LibertyEagle said:
WE gave ourselves our "current centralized monster". We didn't stay vigilant. What our Founders did help give us was the most free and prosperous nation in the history of mankind. It was US that let it slip away.

Put the blame where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, the founders themselves almost immediately started disassembling what was achieve in the revolution as Hans Herman Hoppe has so convinsingly shown in his work (see here, here, and here).
Yes we all are obligated to do our best to prevent a government from crossing to the dark side. But you can't ignore the fact that when governments are structured a certain way they have distinct characteristics of how they evolve over time. You could rerun history a hundred times starting over from the inception of the constitution and you would very likely see America grow into an imperialistic monster similar to what we have today.

Hoppe, has really changed the way I look at all this. A few years ago I would have agreed with you. But I've come to view public apathy and ignorance as a symptom rather than the disease. Likewise, representative government/democracy as the problem not the solution. I know, I know it's counter-intuitive as hell. But I have to conform to the truth.
 
DamianTV said:
I dont think the founding fathers were wrong.

People, Not Mega Corporations...
Click to expand...

Good point. We are seeing the corporations trying to get and enjoy the benefits of personhood, and little good is coming of it.
 
patents

Being a patent holder myself and having various copyrights I have to say that the founding fathers were right in their action. The more I study these men the more profound I find their wisdom and understanding of human nature. Many people try to compare what they know today with them, as if they have greater understanding, when IMHO we are By Far dumbed down compared to their level of understanding regardless of our fancy devices, and atom bombs.

Contrary to popular belief, my patent does not stop you from building my machine, you simply cannot sell it here in the US. However just having my patent application may not give you enough detail to build the device on your own, thus creating the need to secure my services.

If it took me three years of constant effort and my own capital to create a device, I certainly believe anyone is entitled to At Least be reimbursed for such effort. But even with patents, ideas and inventions are STILL stolen, many inventors left broken.

To show you how little patents actually do help, just study Nikola Tesla. Nearly everything radio and electrical up to this very day are based on his patents, yet he died impoverished and despite his impact on mankind, few know of him.

I believe in patents for at least honoring the inventor, such as with Tesla being unknown. I believe there could be patent reform as it is now abused, such as large corporations buying up renewable ideas to maintain their Empire of Waste and Consumption. Devices so sophisticated that the average lab can't build for personal use and study anyway!
I believe in patents for AT LEAST allowing the inventor to break even!!
But I do believe in a cap on time limits, and I also believe in being able to build the device for personal use (one device) without infringement. Which is basically allowable today, it is personal know how that stops many people (labs/shops) in this vein.

IMHO patent reform MUST come AFTER government and business reform, because in a world as corrupt as today, EVERY inventor would be robbed, unknown, and penniless, regardless of the significance of his/her invention, if you disbanded patent law now.

If there was no protection for an inventor from these thieves and tyrants, then NO inventor would develop anything, and if they did they would hide it from everyone.

So YES, the founding fathers ARE encouraging the development of these things, albeit it could be slightly reformed.

Just My Opinion
 
Last edited:
this is exactly right.
PitViper said:
Being a patent holder myself and having various copyrights I have to say that the founding fathers were right in their action. The more I study these men the more profound I find their wisdom and understanding of human nature. Many people try to compare what they know today with them, as if they have greater understanding, when IMHO we are By Far dumbed down compared to their level of understanding regardless of our fancy devices, and atom bombs.

Contrary to popular belief, my patent does not stop you from building my machine, you simply cannot sell it here in the US. However just having my patent application may not give you enough detail to build the device on your own, thus creating the need to secure my services.

If it took me three years of constant effort and my own capital to create a device, I certainly believe anyone is entitled to At Least be reimbursed for such effort. But even with patents, ideas and inventions are STILL stolen, many inventors left broken.

To show you how little patents actually do help, just study Nikola Tesla. Nearly everything radio and electrical up to this very day are based on his patents, yet he died impoverished and despite his impact on mankind, few know of him.

I believe in patents for at least honoring the inventor, such as with Tesla being unknown. I believe there could be patent reform as it is now abused, such as large corporations buying up renewable ideas to maintain their Empire of Waste and Consumption. Devices so sophisticated that the average lab can't build for personal use and study anyway!
I believe in patents for AT LEAST allowing the inventor to break even!!
But I do believe in a cap on time limits, and I also believe in being able to build the device for personal use (one device) without infringement. Which is basically allowable today, it is personal know how that stops many people (labs/shops) in this vein.

IMHO patent reform MUST come AFTER government and business reform, because in a world as corrupt as today, EVERY inventor would be robbed, unknown, and penniless, regardless of the significance of his/her invention, if you disbanded patent law now.

If there was no protection for an inventor from these thieves and tyrants, then NO inventor would develop anything, and if they did they would hide it from everyone.

So YES, the founding fathers ARE encouraging the development of these things, albeit it could be slightly reformed.

Just My Opinion
Click to expand...
 
Brassmouth said:
Exactly. "Intellectual property" rights are an infringement of true property rights, because they allow the original creator to use the State apparatus to control others. I recommend Kinsella's book.
Click to expand...

So, I should be able to take a book that someone else produced, and proceed to make money they would have otherwise made by photocopying a ton of copies. I think most people call that stealing, you did little work, but you get the benefit from the work of another.
 
nate895 said:
So, I should be able to take a book that someone else produced, and proceed to make money they would have otherwise made by photocopying a ton of copies. I think most people call that stealing, you did little work, but you get the benefit from the work of another.
Click to expand...

In a laissez-faire society, you would face peer ostracism for this. You would lose all credibility and your customers would demand their money back. (a laissez-faire society would be necessary for repeal of IP to work, as far as I know right now. Someone here may convince me otherwise.)
 
Some might see intellectual property, as a stimulant for innovation and economic growth. The government is supposedly giving people more incentive to invent stuff, as they will have a monopoly on the inventions production. Even if it is true that IP is good for the economy (which can be disputed), its still not the governments business to mettle in the economy even to encourage growth, that is not laissez-faire.

Coercive monopolies cannot suddenly be deemed okay just to benefit the glorious inventor.

Nate said:
So, I should be able to take a book that someone else produced, and proceed to make money they would have otherwise made by photocopying a ton of copies. I think most people call that stealing, you did little work, but you get the benefit from the work of another.
Click to expand...

The writer should be flattered and happy his ideas were valuable enough in the eyes of others to be reproduced.

Maybe if people didn't come up with ideas solely to make money, there would be less bullshit in the world.

HB said:
In a laissez-faire society, you would face peer ostracism for this.
Click to expand...

I think so. Though people would ostracize you not for making money, but for claiming to be the author of the text.

See plagiarism.

An example for Christians. Just imagine someone holding a government enforced monopoly on the right to produce/sell the bible. The "word of God" is for everyone right? Of course it is, just as ideas are for everyone. Now if I sold the text of the bible, and claimed to be the sole author, no shit I would be ostracized. Imagine the same for any important/historical text.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Copyrights lasting beyond the death of the creator are unconstitutional
Replies
12
Views
5K
Invisible Man
I
unknown
"Policing powers were left to the states ".
2 3
Replies
49
Views
342
acptulsa
acptulsa
ClaytonB
A proposal: Neo-federalism as a new foundation for the US
Replies
10
Views
127
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Taking the Constitution Seriously
2
Replies
24
Views
568
PAF
PAF
Brian4Liberty
Tariffs and the Constitution
Replies
10
Views
1K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top