Can Someone Give Michael Eisner A History Lesson On Copyright And Patents?
from the not-that-it-would-help dept
Michael Eisner gave an interview at SXSW on Tuesday (with Mark Cuban acting as the interviewer). While he discussed a variety of things, at one point he was asked about copyright issues and he responded with a strongly pro-copyright statement:"I have a long history, obviously, of believing in copyright. I think basically what separated this country from the rest of the world was patents and copyrights. President Lincoln introduced a lot of this, fought for (the idea that) to pay people for their intellectual work was no different than paying them for their physical work. And nobody would think twice about paying someone for their physical work."Eisner has been repeating this bizarre and near totally incorrect claim about Lincoln for years. In fact, in 2002 he wrote an editorial for the Financial Times with the bizarre claim that Abraham Lincoln would hate file sharing. Then, last year, in another interview he talked about how important intellectual property was in the US since the time of Lincoln. It certainly would appear that he has Lincoln on the brain when it comes to intellectual property. There are just a few problems with this, with the first one being that Lincoln had almost nothing to do with intellectual property laws in this country. While he is the only president to hold a patent, he didn't do much with that patent, and during his administration there was no major legislative changes to either patent or copyright law. Thus, it's not at all clear why Eisner seems to repeatedly be crediting Lincoln with setting up our modern copyright and patent law.
As we've been discussing, that job fell to two other former Presidents: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who clearly understood that copyrights and patents had both positive and negative impacts -- and were worried that the negatives could outweigh the positives. Eisner, on the other hand, has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's an absolutist: copyright should be ever strengthened and lengthened. It was, after all, under Eisner's watch that Walt Disney was the driving force behind the Bono Copyright Extension Act, designed solely to protect the copyright on Mickey Mouse for even longer. Apparently, since Eisner's history lesson on copyright and patents only goes back to Lincoln, he's not aware of the "for a limited time" part that's in the Constitution.
Furthermore, Eisner seems to have a total blind spot to the fact that much of Walt Disney's success was due to its widespread use of stories and concepts from the public domain (the very public domain he doesn't seem to want to exist any more). Even the beloved Mickey Mouse was originally a concept copied from a popular movie (which was still under copyright at the time Disney copied it). Eisner is no longer at Disney, but it's not a stretch to suggest that a big part of Disney's troubles, leading to his own ouster, had to do with his inability to adapt to the changing times and changing marketplace that wasn't so reliant on artificial scarcities.
The history of intellectual property is fascinating and long, but Abraham Lincoln barely deserves a footnote in it. If Eisner wants the full story, we're more than willing to educate him -- though, since he's such a believer in the idea that information requires property rights, I'm guessing he'd be appalled if we just gave them away. So, Mr. Eisner, if you'd like to pay for a lesson on the history of intellectual property, we're willing to sell one to you. To entice you, we'll even throw in an explanation for why it's also incorrect to claim that intellectual property laws separated the US from the rest of the world (and will even show examples of how the US actively ignored IP rights for many years in order to build up certain industries, including -- believe it or not -- the entertainment industry).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abraham lincoln, copyright, history, james madison, michael eisner, patents, thomas jefferson
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I need a job at disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I need a job at disney
Hear, hear!
I want to be paid for my work over and over again also!!!
Hey Michael Eisner, can I live in your delusional world and get paid for the work I do, over and over and over again. After all, what I do is not entirely physical, I do intellectual work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I need a job at disney
Remember, most people who benefit from copyright law are not rich like Eisner, most are just trying to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eisner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Information does have property rights
There is such a thing as intellectual property, and the right for people who create or purchase it to do what the heck they want with it.
The problem is, the state's recognition of many of our intellectual property rights (to copy, perform, distribute, prepare derivatives, etc.) have been suspended to create a commercial privilege known as copyright - supposedly to encourage publishers to publish, but probably simply to establish state control over publishers.
Let's help Eisner separate the right for people to be able to exchange their intellectual property for money in a free market, from the privilege of preventing people copying or creating derivatives of the intellectual property they've purchased.
Abolish copyright.
Restore everyone's intellectual property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Information does have property rights
BUT the idea that if your work can be digitized and copied you have no right to get paid for its use is simplistic. It usually comes from spoiled brats who make nothing and want to pay nothing.
Copyright is also what protects the most common open source models with GPL etc. So that work is given, but not stolen and turned into another product etc.
The non stop railing against IP law on this board is not only silly, it lables the posters as ignorant and simple in their thinking.
I think there is reform needed.. but in the end.. if you don't offer fair protection for those that create information and entertainment and inventions you penalize this segment of the population.
So Crosbie Fitch.. get a clue there is IP and it does deserve some protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Information does have property rights
The problem is that the pro-intellectual property crowd talks of "fair protection" but neglects to point out that they have been aggrandizing their rights at the expense of the rights of the users of that content. The intellectual property crowd is attempting to charge you for virtually any use of the content you bought.
Want to play a region 1 DVD in region 2, pay again. Want to transfer your music from an iPod to an Zune, pay again. These are "fair use" activities that a consumer is entitled to. The "theft" of these consumer rights is never mentioned by the pro-intellectual crowd. Very disingenuous of them.
Like many of the commenters above, in the name of equity, if the "holder" of intellectual property can be paid over and over again for the use of the same product, I should be paid over and over again for my physical labor. After all property is property. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
This of course, is AFTER they stole it. It's the disney way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why waste the time?
The better approach is just to marginalize him.
His own ignorance helps with this task.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What patent did Lincoln hold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What patent did Lincoln hold?
"On May 22, 1849, Abraham Lincoln received Patent No. 6469 for a device to lift boats over shoals, an invention which was never manufactured."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What patent did Lincoln hold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Certainly Needs Protection
I abhor IP theft - see http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=111
I'm also a champion for a free and fair market in which IP owners can sell their work. A market necessarily free of monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Certainly Needs Protection
How can you have a market free of monopoly, when IP laws grant a de facto monopoly to the owners?
I abhor IP theft
Maybe theft is defined differently in the U.K. In the United States, copying material protected by IP laws without permission is infringement, not theft, as recognized by the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs Protection
IP theft is unauthorised removal from private premises of intellectual works or copies thereof.
Copyright infringement is not necessarily IP theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs Protection
In any case, there is one line in your blog post I disagree with:
Taking or making a copy of a work in someone else’s private possession without their permission is IP theft – even if the work has already been published and is readily available elsewhere.
Making a copy, even in this instance, would still be considered infringement, as the owner has not been deprived of their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs Protection
This includes any copies a burglar may have manufactured whilst on private premises.
Without copyright there cannot be infringement, so the issue evaporates.
What we are left with is theft of intellectual work or copies thereof.
So, just as with GPL software (free as in speech, not beer), you still shouldn't steal it, but if you buy it you can copy it all you want, and sell it all you want, because it's yours to copy, sell, or even give away.
If you don't want anyone to have your IP or to make copies thereof, then don't sell or give it to anyone. Keep it private. It's your property, both the material it's printed on, and the intellectual work so imprinted.
Try not to be beguiled by the spurious notion that it is not theft if you leave the victim with a copy of the work you have stolen. Imagine someone stealing a copy of your diary, home videos, software you had painstakingly written with the hope of selling, amazing photo that you'd hoped to sell to a newspaper, etc.
The value is not in the copy, but in the art. Once, you have purchased the art then you may freely copy, but do not think that you may steal the art and make amends with a copy. The person from who you stole the art may already make all the copies they need at no cost. An extra copy cannot compensate for your theft of their art.
It is copyright that creates the illusion of value in copies. Without copyright copies have no value. Nevertheless, the art remains as valuable as ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs Protection
You're saying, under the current legal system, that if I make an unauthorized copy of something I've purchased, it would be considered infringement.
On the other hand, if I make an unauthorized copy of something I acquired illegally, I am guilty of "IP theft".
Is this an accurate description of your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs Protect
If you remove an intellectual work (irrespective of whether it is protected by copyright) or copy thereof, from someone's private premises without their authorisation it is IP theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs Pro
> of whether it is protected by copyright) or
> copy thereof, from someone's private premises
> without their authorisation it is IP theft.
Umm, no. That's burglary, plain and simple. If I steal a Picasso from your living room, I won't be charged with "IP Theft". I'll be charged with grand larceny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly Needs
Consider a modern Picasso who had yet to find a buyer for his latest and as yet unpublished digital masterpiece. If you came in and stole a copy via your USB keyring, this would also be IP theft, but not material theft.
In both cases valuable works of art have been stolen. In both cases the crimes are of very similar magnitude.
However, if having been published in a magazine (paper or electronic) that you then purchased, to make a paper or digital copy would be your natural right. This right is unethically suspended by copyright.
This is how IP theft differs from copyright infringement. One is a violation of our natural right to privacy, and the other is an infringement of an unethical commercial privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certainly N
Value doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not theft occurred. You can't "steal" value, you can only raise or lower an item's value.
Try not to be beguiled by the spurious notion that it is not theft if you leave the victim with a copy of the work you have stolen.
But it isn't theft. You haven't deprived the owner of their idea (or expression of said idea). Now it could be argued that the copying may (or may not) have devalued the expression, but the owner still retains their IP. The standard (and legal) definition of theft involves both the taking (not copying) of something and removing it from the owner. This doesn't happen with IP.
Out of curiosity, is there any legal definition of "IP theft", or is this your own concept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Certain
Theft is the unauthorised removal of property.
Whether I have a hundred copies or a thousand, it doesn't make any difference - nor if you double the number of copies I have. if you come on my premises and make another copy or a million copies, these copies remain my property just as much as all the others. If you remove any without authorisation, it's theft.
If you purchase a copy, it's not theft (the removal was authorised). If you make a copy of your copy, it's not theft (you've authorised a copy of your own property).
The problem with copyright is that it wrests the right of authorisation to make copies from the property owner to give it as the privilege of the copyright holder.
Abolish copyright and IP behaves as naturally as material property.
The act of unauthorised copying isn't theft. The unauthorised removal of copies is theft.
Intellectual property is not a legally recognised concept, nor is its theft. For that matter nor is plagiarism. The law has failed to move on from 300 year old laws designed to control the printing press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Cer
Intellectual property and plagiarism are most certainly legally recognized. If they weren't, why in the Hell are Mike's panties in such a twist?
"The law has failed to move on from 300 year old laws designed to control the printing press."
The laws were designed to encourage the creation of products that are expensive to produce, but inexpensive to copy. Its an incentive to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
That's mostly right...the cost to produce or copy doesn't really apply though. The purpose of the laws is to encourage innovation, regardless of cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extremes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:extreme
Many people like eleete are great to just share all their work, photography, writings. And that's great! But don't forget there are many people who do this professionally and try to make a living out of photography or writing novels,. How can they give their work free for all (or charge a little bit once for however many copies to be used)? How would you feel when you're starving to death and you see some ad agency making a fortune using a stock photo you gave them for free (or charged for one and said they can duplicate it as many times as they want), by using it ubiquitously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:extreme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:extreme
Someone making money off your work is not a valid argument. You might have a point if someone stolen your work, perpetuate fraud, or whatever but someone who is simply distributing your work for a profits is not doing anything wrong.
There are many way to make a living taking photographs, making video games, among other things that doesn't relies on copyright and can beat whatever copycats and competitors that you may have out there.
It is easy to think copyright is necessary, but economic evidences tell otherwise. They are not necessary by any stretch of imagination. I can tell you that some British authors are handsomely compensated by American publishers, despite no recognition of foreign copyright at the time. Mike can tell you endless examples of how a business models work without relying on copyright. In present day era, we know examples of publishers profiting handsomely from public domain works. We can also point out a section of the software industry that given up their monopoly privileges in exchange for a copyright license that give none of the "benefit" of monopolies and makes selling softwares almost impossible. Yet big software corporations like RedHat that specialized in free software were able to not only compete, but thrives in an environment where there are "legal pirates" can exists.
Your post is sympathy to starving artists, but unfortunately, copyright and artificial scarcity is not the best business models for them. Starving artists has existed for probably thousand of years. Copyright will not solve that starving artist problem.
Anyway, I'll end this post with a quotation from http://againstmonopoly.org
"Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:extreme
A quote from someone who is jealous of successful artists because he can't create something worth stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:extreme
I am not jealous of successful artists' successes, either. Good for them for being able to find a niche in this world.
Bad for them if they're starving the next day. I don't really care.
Meanwhile I makes some money everyday through my little entrepreneurship. Not enough to earn a living but I certainly feel rewarded for appearing on some of the world's most popular social news site and being acknowledged as a useful resource. I hope to expand my revenue generating effort through my further effort. Who know? Maybe I'll makes enough money someday.
Despite what you believe, copying someone's work isn't stealing, no matter how unjustified or evil it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
> from the rest of the world was patents and
> copyrights.
Maybe it's just me but I think I'd place the Bill of Rights above copyright law on the list of things that separates this country from the rest of the world.
Things like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the ability to criticize the government without being thrown in prison, the right to trial, an attorney and the right to be free from self-incrimination and warrantless searches. All of which is far more significant than copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:re:re:extreme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:re:re:extreme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US as IP champion? BWAHAHAHA
I suppose it's true -- but not in the way Eisner means. The US was very slow to protect the copyright of foreign authors, a constant lament of C19th and early C20th European authors... not to mention the American novelists who couldn't make a living because American publishers found it cheaper to rip off British books than pay American royalties. I guess that's what they mean by "the land of the free"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me: "And nobody would think about paying someone twice for their physical work."
YW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twice ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's right?
Amazon, Kindle, iTunes video, iPhone, Hulu, Pandora radio, and many more… Why do you think none of these services are in a first-world country like the Netherlands? Many of these aren't even available in your neighbour-country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]