[dvd-discuss] LYSANDER SPOONER

[Scott A Crosby <scrosby(at)cs.rice.edu>]

Hello... I've been debating on rec.arts.sf.written on copyright issues..

I had thought that the insanity of copyright law was stupid, and most
people agreed.. Man was I wrong. :)

And I just got a few MARVELOUS links.
[1]    http://www.lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
[2]    http://www.lysanderspooner.org/scientists.htm

Anyone heard of LYSANDER SPOONER?

Here's the titles of those URL's and some extracts, written in 1855.

This could make interesting reading for arguments about the wrongness
of copyright.

Scott


******** 
A LETTER TO SCIENTISTS AND INVENTORS
                  ON
THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE, AND THEIR RIGHT OF
PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR DISCOVORIES AND INVENTIONS.

********
THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY;
                   OR
AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHT OF AUTHORS AND INVENTORS
TO A PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR IDEAS.
********

Some quotes from #2, where he rebuts objections to his claim:

SECTION II.

Objection Second.

         The second objection, that is urged against the right of property in ideas, is, that, admitting, (what cannot with the least-reason be denied,) that a man is the sole proprietor of an idea [*42] so long as he retains it in his exclusive possession, he nevertheless loses all exclusive right of property in it the moment he communicates the idea to another person, because that other person thereby acquires as complete possession of the idea, as the original proprietor.


This is a very shallow objection, since it is founded wholly on the assumption, that if a man once intrust his property in another man's keeping, he thereby loses his own right of property in it; whereas men are constantly intrusting their property in other men's hands, in many different ways, and for many different purposes, as for inspection, for hire, for sale, for safe keeping, for the purpose of having labor performed upon it, and for purposes of kindness and accommodation, without their right of property being in the least affected by it. Possession has nothing to do with a man's right of property, after that right  has once been acquired. He can then lose his right of property , only by his own consent to part with it.
***

SECTION V.

Objection Fifth.

         A fifth objection, that is urged to a man's having a right of property in his inventions, is, that the course of events, and the general progress of knowledge, science, and art, suggest, point to, contribute to, and aid the production of, certain inventions; and that it would therefore be wrong to give to a man an exclusive and perpetual property, in a device, or idea, which is not the unaided production of his own powers; but which so many circumstances, external to himself, have contributed and aided to bring forth.

         This objection is as short-sighted as the others. If sound, it would apply as strongly against the right of property in material, [*62] as in intellectual wealth. But has a man no right of property in the gold he finds and gathers in California, because the course of events pointed him thither ? and the general progress of knowledge, science, and art supplied railroads and steamboats to carry him there and tools to work with after he arrived? As well might this be said, as to say that a man should have no property in his idea, because the course of events, and the progress of knowledge, pointed him to it, and enabled him to reach it.

****
SECTION VI.

Objection Sixth.

            A sixth objection is, that since "the course of events, and the general progress of knowledge, science, and art, suggest, point to, contribute to, and aid the production of, certain inventions," as mentioned in the preceding section, it is to be presumed that, if a particular invention were not produced by one blind, it soon would be by another; and that, because one man happens to be the first inventor, is no reason why he should have an exclusive and perpetual property in a device, or idea, which would have been brought forth, before a very long the, by some other mind, if it had not been done by him.

            Admitting, for the sake of the argument, that B would have [*65] produced a certain idea, if A had not done it before him, the objection is of no more weight, in the case of intellectual property, than in the case of material property. If A had not taken possession of a certain tract of wild land, and converted it into a farm, some one would have come after him, and done it. But that is no reason wily the farm does not now belong to A.

***
SECTION VIII.

Objection Eighth.

            It may be urged that, however just may be the principle of the right of property in ideas, still the difficulty of determining who is the true author of an invention, or idea, after that invention or idea has become extensively known to mankind, interposes a practical obstacle to the maintenance of any individual right of property in any thing so subtle, intangible, and widely diffused, as such an invention, or idea.

            This was unquestionably a very weighty and serious objection, in ruder times, when letters were unknown to the mass of the people, and when a thought was carried from mind to mind, unaccompanied by any reliable proof of the first originator. The facilities and inducements thus afforded to fraudulent claims in opposition to those of the true owner, and the difficulty of combating such frauds, by the production of authentic and satisfactory proofs, must have made it nearly or quite impossible to maintain, in practice, the principle that a man was the owner of the thoughts he had produced, after lie bad once divulged them [*70] to the world. And this, doubtless, is the great reason, perhaps the only reason, why the right of property in ideas was not established, in whole, or in part, thousands of years ago.

            But this obstacle is now removed by the invention of records, whereby a man can have his discovery registered, before he makes it public, and thus establish his proprietorship, and make it known, both to the people, and the judicial tribunals.
***