Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable

Posted by BernardSwiss on Dec 6, 2012 11:23 AM EDT
Techdirt; By Mike Masnick
Mail this story
Print this story

The discussion on those is very interesting, both in the book and in the podcast. I won't spoil it all for you yet, but I will say that, yes, he's talking about going back to what copyright law was in 1790 -- meaning that it only lasts for two 14 year terms, and that it should cover only "maps, charts and books" since that's what the founders intended. Also, infringement only happened if you copied the entire thing. Copying a section was fine. Interestingly, Bell's next book (also published by Mercatus) will apparently be published under those exact terms. As for why other things shouldn't be covered, well, he notes that the founders didn't appear to think such expressive works like music, painting and sculpture required copyright, and it's not clear why that should have changed.

Full Story

» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial

« Return to the newswire homepage

This topic does not have any threads posted yet!

You cannot post until you login.