Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:48:52 PM
Copyright and patent is one of those areas of the law where property has been created entirely as a legal fiction, without a real historical precedent. Admittedly, in ancient times, authorship was recognized, but no one thought of remitting a fraction of income to the author of a work when they sold a copy. Nor did anyone think of paying the inventor of a machine for the right to use it. Granted, there are strong legal arguments for intellectual property. On the other hand, there are also argument against it, as well as against specific aspects of the system as we have presently implemented it.
I have thought about this topic quite a bit for several years, and, while still not fully decided, I think it is time to post something on the issue, especially as it seems SOPA and PIPA may have died. Unfortunately, work is demanding today, so it may be a day or two before I get to the essay, but I wanted to announce it in advance if, for no other reason, than to force myself to eventually write it.
I don't know precisely the form it will take, but I know I want to look at the arguments for and against IP in general, as well as the history of IP law, and the arguments about our specific implementation of IP, both ideally and in terms of how the practical application of IP law has evolved recently. Finally, assuming I can reach any meaningful conclusions, I want to try to set out my thoughts on what IP law should be, if not completely, at least some general guidelines.