Copyright Law and Deregulating Amateur Creativity

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Dr. Kopp E. Wright says:

    Real Property….Intellectual Property….

    If its your apartment (real property)….for someone to USE your property,
    they pay rent (or a license fee) for the privilege.

    It’s YOUR song (iintellectual property)….you can licence to whoever you want and give permission to perform also.

    So what’s the beef…..honor the original creator….(God and the first songwriter) and there is no problem……..COPY (or trespass) without permission or payment is “a rip” no matter how you slice it.

    The laws are really good and they get more refined all the time…..
    Seen as no problem…there IS no problem.

    It’s a matter of honoring property rights.

  2. Jacqueline Lipton says:

    It’s interesting that you make the real property analogy because I was thinking about a slightly different real property analogy as it applies to Lessig’s comments. There is a series of cases on property rights versus free speech in the United States (eg Marsh v Alabama, State v Shack, Pruneyard Shopping Centers v Robins). Courts have struggled to balance the rights of a person on the plaintiff’s property to engage in speech that the property owner disagrees with and/or wants to restrict for some reason. I wondered if this might be a good analogy for what Lessig is talking about to the extent his concern is with the public being misled about the property holders’ (ie copyright holders’) views on a particular issue ie whether WB really does condone the use of Bugs Bunny for Nazi propaganda.

    I realize this is not the point you were making ie you are talking about a property owner’s more basic right to control use of his or her property. I just thought it was another interesting real property comparison.