Solveig Singleton, occasional
policy resource for IPI and
more frequent blogger over at IP
Central, is
undertaking a series on the views of Libertarians on IP.
I'll be following it with interest. I've long observed that there are libertarians who believe in IP, and libertarians who don't.
In the drug reimportation debate, it was interesting to see a split at the Cato Institute on drug reimportation. Ultimately, it came down to those who didn't really believe in intellectual property were also in favor of legalizing widespread drug reimportation. Those who believe in IP were opposed to reimportation, which reinforced what I've always said that reimportation was basically about intellectual property.
[The reason drug reimportation is ultimately an issue of intellectual property is that reimportation ultimately comes down to compulsory licensing.]
As a side note, Jim DeLong at PFF relates that his view has always been that creators have a "moral right to it." I find Jim's discussion to be of great interest as well.
This has been my view as well; namely, that anyone who creates something has an inherent right to own what they create. Call it Lockean, call it Natural Law, whatever. That doesn't mean that they can't give it away if they choose, but it DOES mean that no one has a right to take it away by force.
This is also why I've never had a problem with indefinite copyright extentions--because I personally think there need be NO limit on how long someone gets to own what they create. Of course, I have a little Constitutional problem with that view . . . as well as an Epstein problem (as in Richard Epstein), an intellectual giant (and sometime policy resource for IPI), who takes a purely utilitarian view of intellectual property.
So I don't often go on a tear with my unlimited copyright term theory . . .
I suggest that all of us who are interested in the rationale behind IP follow the discussion over at IP Central.
I'll be following it with interest. I've long observed that there are libertarians who believe in IP, and libertarians who don't.
In the drug reimportation debate, it was interesting to see a split at the Cato Institute on drug reimportation. Ultimately, it came down to those who didn't really believe in intellectual property were also in favor of legalizing widespread drug reimportation. Those who believe in IP were opposed to reimportation, which reinforced what I've always said that reimportation was basically about intellectual property.
[The reason drug reimportation is ultimately an issue of intellectual property is that reimportation ultimately comes down to compulsory licensing.]
As a side note, Jim DeLong at PFF relates that his view has always been that creators have a "moral right to it." I find Jim's discussion to be of great interest as well.
This has been my view as well; namely, that anyone who creates something has an inherent right to own what they create. Call it Lockean, call it Natural Law, whatever. That doesn't mean that they can't give it away if they choose, but it DOES mean that no one has a right to take it away by force.
This is also why I've never had a problem with indefinite copyright extentions--because I personally think there need be NO limit on how long someone gets to own what they create. Of course, I have a little Constitutional problem with that view . . . as well as an Epstein problem (as in Richard Epstein), an intellectual giant (and sometime policy resource for IPI), who takes a purely utilitarian view of intellectual property.
So I don't often go on a tear with my unlimited copyright term theory . . .
I suggest that all of us who are interested in the rationale behind IP follow the discussion over at IP Central.
Oh, in anticipation of questions: No, I'm not a libertarian.
I believe in radically limited, smaller government, but I'm not a libertarian.