{"id":1318,"date":"2007-05-20T22:59:24","date_gmt":"2007-05-21T02:59:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mathewingram.com\/work\/2007\/05\/20\/1318\/"},"modified":"2007-05-20T22:59:24","modified_gmt":"2007-05-21T02:59:24","slug":"1318","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2007\/05\/20\/1318\/","title":{"rendered":"Helprin on copyright is copywrong"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Writing in the New York Times, Mark Helprin says he thinks <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/05\/20\/opinion\/20helprin.html?ei=5090&amp;en=4187cd8cddc05eaf&amp;ex=1337313600&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=all\">an injustice is being done<\/a> to creators of artistic and literary works, because the copyright that protects them doesn&#8217;t last forever &#8212; unlike the laws that protect, say, ownership of physical property. If the government can&#8217;t simply take a person&#8217;s house once it is paid for (which it can, of course, but let&#8217;s leave that aside for the moment) then why can it take a man&#8217;s intellectual property?<\/p>\n<p><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" class=\"left\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-content\/uploads\/stealthisidea.jpg?w=525\" alt='stealthisidea.jpg' \/>As mellifluous as Helprin&#8217;s writing may be, his argument on the topic &#8212; if one can even call it that &#8212; is as clanky and tone-deaf as any I&#8217;ve seen. At one point he writes that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;Were I tomorrow to write the great American novel (again?), 70 years after my death the rights to it, though taxed at inheritance, would be stripped from my children and grandchildren&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>and then asks why <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;such a stiff penalty is not applied to the owners of Rockefeller Center or Wal-Mart&#8221; and why it is alright for the state to &#8220;sieze the property&#8221; of authors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Like many others, Helprin has likely been seduced by the term &#8220;intellectual property,&#8221; which implies that ideas are (or should be) the same as objects. Once you begin to think of your creations &#8212; the words you have strung together in a particular way at a particular time &#8212; as property in the same sense that your house and car are , then you are well on your way towards a misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>Helprin may believe that investing artistic works with the same qualities as physical property is <em>&#8220;natural and becoming,&#8221; <\/em> but saying it doesn&#8217;t make it so. Early lawmakers decided to treat them differently for a reason &#8212; because they are different. Taking someone&#8217;s property removes it from him forever. Copying someone&#8217;s artistic creation, or using it to create something artistic in its own right, is something quite different.<\/p>\n<p>I could go on, but as BoingBoing <a href=\"http:\/\/www.boingboing.net\/2007\/05\/20\/help_write_a_reply_t.html\">notes<\/a>, Lawrence Lessig has set up a wiki to craft a response to Helprin <a href=\"http:\/\/wiki.lessig.org\/index.php\/Against_perpetual_copyright\">here<\/a>, and there is already more than enough rational argument there to counter the author&#8217;s position and then some.<\/p>\n<div class=\"syndication-links\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Writing in the New York Times, Mark Helprin says he thinks an injustice is being done to creators of artistic and literary works, because the copyright that protects them doesn&#8217;t last forever &#8212; unlike the laws that protect, say, ownership of physical property. If the government can&#8217;t simply take a person&#8217;s house once it is &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2007\/05\/20\/1318\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Helprin on copyright is copywrong&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crsspst_to_mathewingramblogwordpresscom":false,"mf2_syndication":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1318","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1318"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1318\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}