Copyrights? © © © ©

© I was reading some material about copyrights on a government site after a discussion with some musicians about making copies of musical scores. Buried in small print, I discovered an interesting concept that I had not realized before, and I think most people have the same mistaken concept as I did.

© I thought that copyrights (and patents for that matter) were established to protect the rights of the original creator. I thought the goal was that he will be allowed the opportunity to profit from or at least control the use of the original material, and to prevent others from doing so.

© That seems very logical, and indeed is the effect, but believe it or not, it is not the base reason the copyright laws were created, and continue to exist. It is not about the individual, but the society.

© The real reason is to insure that the creative process is encouraged, not discouraged in our society. A system that stifles or slows down innovation would be bad for all. Copyright laws are just a means to that end, and may not be the only way to do it.

© The idea is that if people do not have a reasonable chance to profit from their work, they would not do it. That is a very capitalistic and intellectually sound concept, but not a universal truth. For instance, monks in the renaissance created beautifully crafted Biblical paintings and scrolls with neither copyright protection nor stimulation by the profit motive.

© As we re-think the laws, updating for the new technologies and the digital age, these concepts will come into play.

Eminent Domain Abuse

I have typically kept my governmental and political views out of this blog, but I feel a need to voice an opinion about an important constitutional issue here in Connecticut that has risen to the Supreme Court. The issue is eminent domain:

Typically we were taught that if an interstate was going through, or a new town hall was being built, and the government needed the land, a private owner was duty bound to sell at market price, yield to the public use and public good. Seems like a civilized thing. Even though there may be some losers, the society would gain.

U.S. Constitution: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Only mentions property taken for public use. It was just assumed that they can't take private property for other reasons.

But over the years, apparently the cities and courts have been pushing this public use clause limit, and have allowed cities to take land that the "public use" was not so clearly defined.

Now this test case is being argued. It is a classic example, not fuzzy at all. New London Connecticut has condemned and wants to kick homeowners off their own land, out of their own houses for: . . . . get this . . . a private business park and shops complex! Probably it will bring in much more revenue for the city! Not a city owned project, private. So New London thinks that if you pay your mortgage for 30 years like this one family did, play by the rules, own your own home in the working-class section, Fort Trumbull, near the harbor, the city can force you to sell it to somebody else because they will possibly pay more taxes (the public use angle)? American spirit, right?

To say this is outrageous seems to be an understatement. This was argued last week in front of the Supreme Court, and they will render the opinion in the next few months, I guess. If they don't rule this unconstitutional, It will be a shame.

If you want to read some more details about this, a place to start would be Jeff Jacoby's article here. Quoting Jacoby, here is the bottom line if not reversed:

"Anyone's property can be taken by eminent domain if the government believes another owner would use it to earn a higher profit. . . . . The question now is whether five Supreme Court justices will agree to kill off this piece of the Bill of Rights for good, or to bring it back to life. The fate of more than just seven Connecticut homeowners is riding on their decision."