Intellectual Property
Jul. 23rd, 2003 12:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
javasaurus For the most part this term applies to anything that you can copyright or patent. Such things are allowed for (though not required by) the Constitution (Article I, section 8), with the intent of encouraging progress and art by allowing those of creative spirit to profit from their efforts. I wholehearted agree with this idea.
One complaint regarding intellectual property involves prescription medicines. A drug company, after patenting a new drug substance, has 17 years to turn a profit before the generics are sold. A long time? Not really, once you realize that the first eight to ten years of that period will be spent testing the drug for safety and getting it approved for human use by the FDA. The testing is not cheap, and only about 1% of drug substances patented actually make it to market. The drug companies then have only a few years to reap a profit from their testing and research with which to fund future work. Without the few years of monopoly, the research drug companies would quickly cease, as would production of new drugs.
How many professional artists (writers, painters, music composers, etc.) would be able to continue in their profession if they didn’t get paid? Without copyright laws, a low-budget press could mass produce a novel and pocket the profit, the writer getting nothing for their untold hours of effort (a professional writer working full time on a average novel might complete it in about 3 to 4 months). In fact, without copyright laws, the publisher could make unapproved changes to the text, possibly alter the intent of the author, or even leave the author’s name off completely, so the author wouldn’t even get credit. That would leave little incentive for authors to even pick up their pens.
What it really comes down to, is that creators and publishers and consumers enter into contracts of purchase. When you buy a book or sound recording, you are bound by the copyright on it, which means that you cannot reproduce it (except in “fair use” circumstances, which generally exclude excuses like “it is too expensive to buy”). If you don’t like the limitations on the purchase, don’t buy the product. Computer software has gone further by adding another layer to copyright – the user license agreement, which is a more specific contract about what you can and cannot do with the software. Again, if you don’t like the contract, don’t buy the product. I guess copyright law is effectively a Congress-imposed end-user license agreement. Without it, we’d all be forced to sign contracts of intent every time we bought a book.
MP3 music files being swapped over the net: I’ve heard excuses like “the musicians actually benefit from swapping and the exposure it brings” or “they have so much money that it can’t hurt them – the music companies are being petty power giants” and others. However, it’s not about whether the musicians benefit, or whether the companies get money. It’s about the artist maintaining control of their work. If they want to let their songs get swapped, that’s fine. If they don’t like swapping, they should have the choice.
One complaint regarding intellectual property involves prescription medicines. A drug company, after patenting a new drug substance, has 17 years to turn a profit before the generics are sold. A long time? Not really, once you realize that the first eight to ten years of that period will be spent testing the drug for safety and getting it approved for human use by the FDA. The testing is not cheap, and only about 1% of drug substances patented actually make it to market. The drug companies then have only a few years to reap a profit from their testing and research with which to fund future work. Without the few years of monopoly, the research drug companies would quickly cease, as would production of new drugs.
How many professional artists (writers, painters, music composers, etc.) would be able to continue in their profession if they didn’t get paid? Without copyright laws, a low-budget press could mass produce a novel and pocket the profit, the writer getting nothing for their untold hours of effort (a professional writer working full time on a average novel might complete it in about 3 to 4 months). In fact, without copyright laws, the publisher could make unapproved changes to the text, possibly alter the intent of the author, or even leave the author’s name off completely, so the author wouldn’t even get credit. That would leave little incentive for authors to even pick up their pens.
What it really comes down to, is that creators and publishers and consumers enter into contracts of purchase. When you buy a book or sound recording, you are bound by the copyright on it, which means that you cannot reproduce it (except in “fair use” circumstances, which generally exclude excuses like “it is too expensive to buy”). If you don’t like the limitations on the purchase, don’t buy the product. Computer software has gone further by adding another layer to copyright – the user license agreement, which is a more specific contract about what you can and cannot do with the software. Again, if you don’t like the contract, don’t buy the product. I guess copyright law is effectively a Congress-imposed end-user license agreement. Without it, we’d all be forced to sign contracts of intent every time we bought a book.
MP3 music files being swapped over the net: I’ve heard excuses like “the musicians actually benefit from swapping and the exposure it brings” or “they have so much money that it can’t hurt them – the music companies are being petty power giants” and others. However, it’s not about whether the musicians benefit, or whether the companies get money. It’s about the artist maintaining control of their work. If they want to let their songs get swapped, that’s fine. If they don’t like swapping, they should have the choice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 02:43 pm (UTC)