Copyright Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism

Pure free market capitalism would be if I could buy your book the day it's released, make photocopies, and sell them outside the bookstore for cheaper.<p>Pure free market capitalism would let me make a fake Rolex. It would let me reverse-engineer an iPod and sell it with the label "iPod."<p>There are downsides to this, and that's why we have IP laws. But those laws are not free market capitalism; they are restraints on it.

The history showed that many works when going into public domain generated a brand new active market. As an example, the work from Freud has been recently put in the public domain (in Europe, it means only that the patrimonial rights are expected but the effect are somehow similar to put the works in the public domain). The first day you could find in all the book-stores many new publications from his works included annotated version or commented version. All the editors knew it was a good opportunity and a brand new market of works based on previous Freud work. Before the work was closed by the right holders and no real economic activities... So I still don't get the point of that lawyer.

Isn't the whole idea of the government taking action against people for marketing goods against free market capitalism?

Er, why would this be a problem?<p>Free markets are one of the better ways of distributing scarce resources in the majority of situations.<p>Capitalism is one of the better ways to promote efficient use of scarce resources.<p>If something <i>isn't</i> scarce, there's no need for either of these.

These ideas are reminiscent of the ideas of Andrew Joseph Galambos, who believed that one retained intellectual property rights indefinitely. (Reportedly, he believed that Thomas Paine coined the word "liberty" and put a nickel in a box every time he used the word so that he could pay Paine's descendants for royalties.)<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos</a>

I know it's popular to hate lawyers here but enough is enough=&#62; Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism<p>Copyright is not bad. It has gotten out of hand, but the principle is good. Limited (again, it isn't really anymore, but it should be) protection. Just like if you built a car, created a drug, or manufactured any other widget and someone stole it after you expended the time and effort or production (yes, I know this example has flaws; sweat of the brow etc.)<p>Lawyers also are not universally bad. Though I agree with you there are many I cannot stand. There are dirty cops, crooked politicians, cheating mechanics, lazy doctors and stuck up IT guys and yes, even annoying hackers.<p>You want to bash copyright, fine. You want to bash lawyers, fine. Just don't make blanket statements. A lot of us are on your side.<p>Lawyer for the entertainment industry != copyright lawyer.<p>In my best Han Solo, "sorry about the mess."

<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/reply/20110224-Ivan-Hoffman.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/reply/20110224-...</a><p>This is all I could find from him from the Copyright Office's documents. [1] He does not appear to be talking about things entering the public domain at all. I don't think hearsay of hearsay of one of 84 people talking at a meeting is much to go on.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/" rel="nofollow">http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/</a>

On a lighter note -- somebody's got serious sense of humour there: <a href="http://www.ivanhoffman.com/awards.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ivanhoffman.com/awards.html</a><p>(that's part of the website of the lawyer in question, as linked to from Techdirt)

Is RIAA now trying to outlaw the public domain or something?

If you think about the internet in terms of democratizing publishing and making more works available to the public. Add in the increased availability of consumers to monetize the content along with self-serve advertising such as AdSense / AdWords. With these advances in place it makes sense that copyright should be shortened because it allows creators to be compensated more quickly.<p>If you contrast works like the Dan Brown's 'Davinci Code' compared to Mary Shelly's 'Frankenstein' it would stand to reason that Dan Brown was able to be remunerated for his efforts much more quickly than Mary Shelly thus the purpose of copyright can be full filled much more quickly and should be shortened in order to make more works available to the public. Which is the stated goal of copyright.

Can't argue with that. 'Course, geniuses like this particular copyright lawyer would note that laws prohibiting strip mining Yosemite "go against free market capitalism" too. More limits on "free market capitalism" will thankfully continue to elevate us a bit above what amounts to the brainless economics and political philosophies of cancer cells.