BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

intellectual property vs. "real" property

To: "brhslist" <brhslist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: intellectual property vs. "real" property
From: <metcalf@a...>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 23:27:57 -0600
Unfortunately there was a historical differentiation in English law between
intellectual property and "real" property. Fortunately the two are
converging. The idea that your creation can be taken away from you after a
set number of years if it is an "intellectual" creation is anti-productive.
If you build a chair you are entitled to keep it as long as you wish
(assuming that you did a good enough job). But if you create an
"intellectual" property, such as a book, photograph, etc. the law says that
your rights are terminated after a certain of years (currently life of the
creator plus ninety years, unless it's a work-for-hire, in which case it's
ninety years from the creation, otherwise corporations with multi-centuries
of existence would own work-for-hire in perpetuity).
One aspect of the U.S. copyright laws where we diverge from the
civilized world is the requirement that to secure enforcement by the U.S.
government you have to deposit the work with a fee. Even so, enforcement is
erratic. Usually you have to bring a suit on your own behalf and hope that
you can collect a judgment.
Hopefully everyone can extend the Golden Rule to intellectual property.
Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • intellectual property vs. "real" property, metcalf <=