Infinite Copyrights? Let’s Kill All Innovation

The growth in intellectual property (IP) rights has gotten to be quite an issue in the service oriented economies of the world. Here in the Unites States, it is getting to the point few things will ever end up in the public domain again. Now that trend is being exported with an RIAA written law going into effect in New Zealand and the European Commission extending sound recording copyrights from 50 to 70 years.

Shane Richmond has a good OpEd at The Telegraph on this and it has sparked a debate in the comments. Some good points are made there opposing his views, but in the end I agree with him.

Ever heard of the phrase “starving artist”? I believe that the best work often comes from artists who are struggling to make ends meet, because that motivates them to reach higher and try new ideas. If there is one thing that causes mental and creative stagnation, I’d say it is laziness born of security. Risk aversion is not a creative engine economically, scientifically, creatively, or spiritually.

It is perverse that humans do not dare when they are comfortable. One would think that having a solid safety net would encourage taking risks, but that is not how we behave. Instead there is a tendency to only take action when forced to. These copyright extensions are to make the already comfortable even more so.

I do agree that copyright holding does need to exist, but my complaints are about the draconian interpretations that take fair use away and the constant extending of ownership. What is the best amount of time for a copyright to be held? I cannot say for sure, but I think anything past 25 years is ridiculous for entertainment properties.

Frankly, the idea that ideas equal “properties” bothers me greatly. We have gotten so far from the physical in what we produce that is had damaged the economic health of the country. Perhaps it is a function of growing older, but tangible things speak to me of reality far more than IP’s do. Still, there must be incentive to create, so going to the extreme of making everything open source is foolish in the long run.

So we need copyrights and royalties. But we need them to be reasonable in order to foster daring, that thing that fuels creativity. Instead we are strangling creativity in the name of profits and protecting rights.

If I were to ever get published, I would put my works in the public domain somewhere around ten to fifteen years later. That is a promise I will keep if such things come to pass.