I’ve written about this here before.

This came up today at work, and I decided to delve back into the internet and do a little more research. It’s apparent to me after reading Richard Stallman’s ‘Misinterpreting Copyright that the book publishers, movie industry publishers, and music industry publishers have hi-jacked the Constitution. (I consulted several other sources listed below as well). There was a big debate about copyright and patent as the founding fathers drafted the Constitution. Jefferson and Franklin (my personal heros) were against including any kind of copyright verbage, while Hamilton and Madison felt that some protections for writers and inventors was needed to stimulate these industries in the new America.
A compromise was struck, the ‘copyright bargain’, which in essense, traded away some of the public’s freedoms for a potential benefit that could be realized by rewarding invention and creation.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (the “Intellectual Property Clause” also called the Patent and/or Copyright Clause) of the United States Constitution states, [Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

It is important to recognize that the Constitution permits this power, it doesn’t require it. The original copyright law of 1790 gives ‘an author the exclusive right to publish and vend “maps, charts and books” for a term of 14 years’. It didn’t cover music or any other forms of media, and 14 years seems a relatively reasonable amount of time to publish, promote and reap some profit from a book. The Patent Act of 1790 (H.R. 41, introduced February 16, 1790, passed March 10, 1790) was crafted in part by Thomas Jefferson. As a result, it incorporated many of his beliefs including requirements for patents to have models submitted with all applications. Jefferson believed that ideas should not be patentable, rather patents should be issued only for physical inventions that have been reduced to practice.

Understanding the original intent and concerns of the authors of the original Patent and Copyright Acts leads me to believe that Stallman is right. The framers realized that this was the kind of bargain that could only be justified as it would benefit the general public by providing new practical inventions and investigations in science that would not otherwise have a chance to flourish. However, over time the Publishers and Firms (to whom the majority of authors and inventors have turned over their rights) have gained extensions and considerations far beyond that which truly benefits the public. They have lobbied and convinced Congress many times that their business will be harmed if these protections are not extended further, and they seem to have been winning (at the expense of the freedoms of the general public) for 200 years. In my opinion, Americans should call for a roll-back on the length of copyrights and patents to a length of time more reasonable for the particular product cycle involved. This would not go over well with the big Publishers who would invariably hold the up the ‘little guy’ who will be harmed by such a measure, and then go back to paying that person their pittance of a royalty and holding a firm grip on the rights to millions of books (now out of print) that still fall under the 70+ year protection.

What other freedoms are currently in jeopardy?

Find out at the EFF

• US Copyright Law
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._copyright_law
• M-Cam (Intellectual Property Rights Company), A History of the US Patent Office
  
  http://www.m-cam.com/~watsonj/usptohistory.html