As the debate over the future of copyright, trademarks and patents unfolds, it will be more important than ever for participants, and bystanders, to have good information concerning the nature of IP. By removing the myths and misconceptions which surround copyright, trademarks and patents, we can make better decisions as to its proper status in our society. The author of this text is unknown, but the text itself has been placed in the public domain and may be copied freely.

Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents are Ancient Principles.
Not true. Copyright, trademarks and patents are explicitly modern notions, having made its debut quite recently. The first patent law was enacted in 1623, and the precursor of modern copyright - the Statute of Anne - came into being in 1710. These early laws were limited in scope and restricted to only a few types of information; the broader interperatation of these principles used today in the western world is quite modern, certain elements having been added only within the last few years.

Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents are Recognized Worldwide.
As the US's recent standoff with China demonstrates, copyrights, trademarks and patents are not a concept which has worldwide acceptance. Indeed, a major foreign policy objective of the United States has been to force other nations to comply with its own intellectual property agenda - an unwelcome form of intellectual imperialism which is all too frequently ignored by watchdog groups.

Without Copyright, Trademarks and Patents, No One Will Produce Original Work.
Given that intellectual property law made its debut in 1623, we may correctly consider any work produced before this time to dispell the myth. Man created for millenia before the advent of intellectual property; he will create for many more millenia after it is abandoned.

Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are Necessary to Create Incentives for the Production of Original Works.
These myths have become the mantra of copyright, trademark and patent supporters. Often repeated, never questioned, the idea that creativity depends on a government granted monopoly needs no justification in the minds of most copyright, trademark and patent boosters. Sadly, however, they are mistaken: copyright, trademark and patent "rights" are not essential to creation, and in some circumstances even deter it. Consider, for instance, the software industry. Free for years from the limitations of patents, the industry flourished, becoming by all accounts one of the most creative of environments in the modern world. With the recent introduction of patent law into computing, however, many individual programmers live in fear of lawsuits from large corporations who claim "ownership" of techniques such as the scroll-buffer. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the creator! Copyright, trademark and patent law, from its inception, has been about publishers and other powerful firms as much as it has been about creative individuals; the latter often find their interests poorly defended by copyright, trademark and patents.

Even if People Did Create Works Without Copyright, Trademark and Patent Protections, the Quality of These Works Would be Substandard.
Only if "Julius Caesar", Plutarch's "Lives", "The Last Supper", and Handel's "Messiah" are "substandard"! All of these, including such pivotal creations as the Bible, the Koran, and the hundreds of Sutras were created in a world without copyright, trademark and patents. Copyright, trademark and patent boosters claim that weakening copyright, trademark and patent law means giving up great literature, music, and art; in fact, history shows us that this is not the case.

The "Best" Creators won't Work Without Copyright, Trademark and Patent Protections.
Once again, history proves this to be false. Shakespeare, Plato, Confucius, Hero, Chaucer, Handel, and many others of the finest names in world literature, music, art, and invention worked in an environment free of intellectual property restrictions. Clearly, genius does not require copyright to produce!

To Take Away Copyright, Trademark and Patent Rights is to Deny Creators the Right to Profit from their Labors.
This myth is based on the idea that the only way to make money off of creation is to "sell" the ideas which are produced. In fact, this is not true. Consulting, support, performance, service: these are all ways in which creators can make money off of their abilities without appealing to copyright, trademark and patent rights. Even if there were no copyright, a band could still make money by charging for live performances, for instance; an even better example is found in academia, where a great deal of idea production takes place without the ideas being "sold" to the universities which sponsor their creators. Removing copyright, trademark and patent rights would not deny creators the right to profit from their labors; it would, however, allow all of society to share in the benefits of their work.

Intellectual Property Follows Directly From the Notion of Physical Property.
Physical property rights are derived from the basic fact that a physical object can't be in two places at once. In order to keep people from squabbling over material objects, we use a system of rights to say "who gets what". Information, however, differs from physical property in a number of ways, one of which being that it can be in many places at the same time. Let's say that Fred gives Barney an apple; after this, Fred no longer has the apple. If, on the other hand, Fred tells Barney about the apple, Fred still knows about the apple. Fred gave the information to Barney, but Fred still has it! Clearly, then, there is no need for Fred and Barney to squabble over who "owns" the information about the apple: to do such would be to try to treat information like an object, an idea which is clearly flawed.

Read this folks, copy it paste it on websites, distribute it at school and work. Education is the first part of the process.

Very well written! Including this article on my own website @ www.ryansmadhouse.com

I remember this from somewhere. Awesome essay, and I think it should be required reading. Thanx for puttin' it up.

Nice essay!

Very good essay. I have one addition that is perhaps pertinent that I would like to suggest. Since I am not a lawyer or even too-well-read on the subject, I leave it to Leflaw and the like to handle the specifics.

Namely, that in certain times and for specific reasons, copyrights can be ignored/circumvented. Recently, an African nation (not remembering which)circumvented a pharmacy company's patent on an AIDS drug. Bottom line, the people in that country at dying in tens of thousands of Aids, and the government simply saw the copyright as interference, and decided to abolish it on that drug. Regardless of what the other countries of the world thought, said or did, they started buying that drug legally from anyone that wanted to make it for them.

Sometimes copyrights are a bad thing.

Then perhaps we should also mention that under current United States copyright law, a copyright is bestowed upon a work at the moment of its creation. Unlike a trademark or patent, which must be applied for to be valid, a creative idea in a 'fixed' form (sheet music, tape, phonorecord, etc etc) is legally copyrighted (and entitled to use the © symbol) once it is fixed in some physical form. This would presumbably cover an MP3 file since it can be fixed on a magnetic medium. When you fill in and mail the Library of Congress a PA or SR form (among others), all you are doing is registering your copyright; the copyright itself already exists.

The only major exception to this is 'work for hire' items, which are created by someone for someone or something else. If I work for Rhino Records, and write the liner notes to "Greatest Blind Disco Groups of the 70's, Vol. XXIII", then the copyright for the notes would be assigned to Rhino. But that would all be covered under my contract with Rhino.

Milla, Its from www.publicknowledge.org

Oh yeeahhh. ..andja know what, that's a pretty cool site. It's been a while; thanx for the refresh.

nice adder mcarp...I think people should know all the copyright laws. I do happen to register all of my copyrights just in case, but like you said, It is protected as soon as I create it and record it.