Copyright Meta Analysis

From Zanecorpwiki

• Helprin does a good job of arguing for extension of copyright.
  • He points out the straw arguments some on the other side make.
  • His point about the ability to misquote is well taken; I am entirely persuaded that a perpetual correct attribution requirement is a good idea.
  • The idea that copyright adds little to the cost of works is good to know (though I've haven't heard much of a counter-argument on this point).
• He makes a number of errors, though.
  • His response to "the other side", at least in the interview, seems like so much slaying of the paper tiger.
  • Helprin does a poor job of addressing the fundamental issues of the other side, except to dismiss them. In this he is alternately ignorant and arrogant. His understand of "the art of the commons" (not his exact phrase) is emblematic (see next primary issue).
• There is a real, fundamental, and possibly irreconcilable difference. Helprin clearly expresses a belief that art can never be community generated and that community has little input into art. I get his point, and think there's something to it, but on the other hand his characterization of the alternative as "soviet" (in the original sense) is ludicrous (straw man). The idea of the commons is to create fertile grounds. I've never heard anyone except Helprin talk about art by committee. I'm sure it's out there, and he could point me to someone but on this he seems entirely disingenuous to me. I may be wrong--blinded by my bias--but I've read a fair amount and I've never heard talk about communal creation even once that I can recall.
• Another example: Whether or not my children's children should be able to inherit is either compelling or not. I understand his position, but I take the opposite view. I think both society and the individual is harmed by inherited wealth and see no inherent good in expanding the breadth of stuff that can get bound up in what is effectively a lottery. I understand the difficulties in implementation, and that radical reform on this issue would be hard and perhaps cause more harm than good, but as a fundamental proposition, it seems clear to me that inheritance is anti-market, anti-egalitarian, anti-liberty... pretty much bad for any positive goal society and individuals could strive for.
• On these issues, we may be forced to chalk it up to taste or leave it for another day and find the common ground where we can.
• His bringing up of the founders is rather silly since the founders specifically set copyright to 7 + 7 years. I have no problem disagreeing with the Founding Fathers, but to invoke them when they clearly and explicitly disagree with you is... a willful misunderstanding? Maybe I'm missing his point because he's obviously not ignorant of history.
• His focus on books is unfortunate. The far more interesting questions happen in other medias.

I'd like to tear this apart and compare and contrast with CC manifesto stuff. I think there's more common ground than Helprin imagines, and much of the rest is orthogonal. There are clearly some issues of direct contention, but these need better contextualization for both parties as well.