Intellectual Property Exceptionalism Justified

When the Founding Fathers ( yes, Markaba, that lot ) debated about copyright they recognized that an idea is different than a bushel of wheat. Anyone who takes from the bushel depletes the quantity in the bushel without bringing anything new forth; they merely change the possessors of the same amount. ( And yes, we could argue about planting versus consumption; but not at the time of the taking. )

Whereas any idea can be taken without removal of it in the possession of its first owner. Further, it can be transmuted into something else. Pyramus and Thisbe gets turned into Romeo & Juliet which gets adapted into ballet, opera and a really bad Leo DiCaprio film.

When they compromised it was the recognition that copyright was a necessary evil necessary to induce poets to leave their day-jobs. But as time goes on, and powers like The Mouse and Deutschland conspire to extend copyright however long it takes to prevent Mickey Mouse and Mein Kampf from going public-domain, it becomes clear than the necessary has become lost in the evil. It has become an excuse for censorship, a way for politically connected businessmen to use corruption to stifle creativity and for Governments to find ways to suppress the dissemination of their own atrocities to the citizens they target.

And, you know, it wasn't a clear and compelling argument to the Founders. It was a compromise. I'm not inclined to speculate anachronistically about 18th century gentry, but I think if they could see what info-sharing-suppression was being used for in the 21st century, they'd settle for having America's composers and authors keep a 2nd job and remain amateurs.

Dante