Right out of the gate I appreciate two elements of Heather’s “Take a Stand” statement. First, is her clarification of her biases or points of view. Second, she the work on the history of evolution of copyright in the US she did. In making my own argument for limited copyright, I did not tap this important theme. However, I think it is compelling. Accordingly, I want to bring connect and relevant it to and with my argument.
An additional nuance that Heather mentions but does not develop deeply regards public funded works should immediately be licensed under the most open terms of Creative Commons.
I think Heather and I are pulling towards a notion of feeding innovation and advancement of knowledge particularly in the rapidly changing online environment.
Certainly, in the case of some kinds of intellectual property this model breaks down. The development of drugs for humans is such a place. The R&D and the legal hurdles to getting a new drug to market pull the conversation in a radically different direction. Admittedly, this is not copyright, however, it causes me to pause and wonder if in the realm of copyright protection there is something analogous? Are Heather and I too quickly swinging the pendulum the other way?
I am less certain where Kevin is going in his “Take a Stand” statement. Perhaps, the difference is in the metaphor of physical property being analogous to intellectual property, if not 1:1 then in still meaningful ways. In my experience, ideas are not at all like my faux Persian rug. One of my favorite collaborations is the work of John Steinbeck and Ed Rickets, The Log from the Sea of Cortez. I think it is a fine testament to the conversational quality of ideas developed between people. In addition, from it we see that ideas spawn ideas, perhaps not infinitely but certainly in a way that is not restricted like physical property. So, I am opposed to perpetual copyright as defined in this way. Even perpetual attribution is a struggle. Again looking at Steinbeck/Ricketts they themselves could not say where the idea originated though they could identify what they synthesized and worked out together.
I appreciate Kevin taking the “other hand” but alas, I cannot agree to corporate welfare nor to descendants’ welfare. Let them do the creative work and contribute some creative ideas of their own.