logo

Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.





Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


back

Comparitive dreaming about imputed propertyhood and corporate personhood

Writing as Schumpeter, The Economist speculates on how far to push the idea that companies have the same rights as real people (Paywall workaround: enter the link in Google) link here. That started me off, speculating on civil rights for companies and trade unions as  court imputed rights notably lacking grounding in the constitution or in common sense. Who dreamed up the idea that companies are persons? That got me to thinking about how intellectual property in general is anchored in the constitution but it too has no physical dimensions; I can't see it or pick it up or lock it up. Therefore, intellectual property is a legal construct or attribute, also lacking in common sense.

One notable difference results; the civil rights of persons have a grounding in the constitution to the extent that personhood is clearly defined there. But it is not. A major further consequence is that personhood gets defined by the courts, hopefully applying common sense but with no guarantees.

In contrast, the constitution allows the Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." No room for the courts in that until someone's rights are violated and he shows he has a substantial interest sufficient to satisfy the courts and they agree to hearing the case. Thus, changing the law pretty much requires getting the Congress to act.

Schumpeter has a lot of other interesting things to say, so read the article. Among them is a defense of the personhood of corporations which struck me as way over the top. But it is thought-provoking.


Comments

In 18th Century Overture I question the popular interpretation of The Constitution as empowering Congress to grant copyright.

Being immortal, and often extremely powerful, corporations outclass human beings when it comes to lobbying and they won't be shy to perpetuate Constitutional interpretations that argue for both their continued existence, superiority (let alone equality) to human beings, and entitlement to monopolies (and other privileges they'd inveigle as rights).

Also see Not Being Human.

The Corporation is out of mortal control. You should recognise its contempt for the biosphere as evidenced by the Deepwater Horizon fiasco. It's only profit that influences the risks it takes, not the health of the planet and life upon it.

I think the link in your posting (to the Economist article) is broken.
The Economist link is broken, pls repair.
The link works now.
Crosbie says:

"In 18th Century Overture I question the popular interpretation of The Constitution as empowering Congress to grant copyright."

You can challenge all you like. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and said that the Constitution does empower Congress to grant copyright.

There are only two options. Either a court case questioning the validity of this opinion must be heard by the court, which seems unlikely since they have already ruled on this issue, or the constitution has to be amended to clarify that congress is not permitted to grant copyright. Somehow, I doubt congress is even vaguely interested in taking up the issue.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of whether the copyright clause is a violation of the first amendment and found that it does not because copyright only protects a particular embodiment of an idea and not the idea itself.

Anon, of course the US government (Congress+Supreme Court+lobbyists) isn't interested in questioning copyright's assumed constitutional sanction, nor is it thus interested in recognising that annulling the right to copy or speak another's words abridges the individual's liberty.

I also doubt it's interested in questioning the wisdom of recognising corporations as equivalent to human beings.

However, it seems The People are becoming ever more interested in these corruptions.

Don't forget that the power provided to the government by the Constitution comes from The People.

So it is The People who are interested to know why copyright is in apparent conflict with their liberty.

Eventually, we'll realise that you can't have both the right to liberty and the privilege of derogating from it. One of them is not like the other. One of them couldn't be recognised, but had to be granted - unconstitutionally.


Submit Comment

Blog Post

Name:

Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code
UnoSevenCincoUno:


Post



   

Most Recent Comments

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who

Music without copyright I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will