The Death of Invention and Prosperity

News flash: Napster, the Web site that created an electronic marketplace for stolen music, may be illegal. Stunning insight.

Who should be concerned about Napster?

• anyone who works in any industry that relies on patents, copyrights, or trade secrets: their very livelihood depends on the adequate protection of property;

• anyone who invests in those industries--say, for instance, technology, publishing, pharmaceuticals, movies, or television;

• or how about the people who enjoy reading original material, enjoy a good Broadway play or a Saturday afternoon at the movies, or like being able to take medication for illness?

• anyone who cares about owning his own home or car . . . or owning anything else, for that matter . . . should be concerned with the arguments being made to support attacks on intellectual property.

Intellectual property--a creative work, developed in the mind of someone or a group of people, and registered with the government for sale or use by the owner, inventor, or creator--has been repeatedly attacked in the digital age. But its legal protection has a long history.

Some of the first laws enacted by the first Congress (in 1790) are the foundation of current copyright laws. The Constitution authorizes protection of intellectual property as a way to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The reasoning was more pragmatic than ideological. The Founders understood protection provides the incentive for companies and individuals to continue creating and inventing, and to invest in commercializing the invention.

Accessories to a Crime

Some interesting notions have cropped up around the discussion of Napster. Some say "something this cool should be legal"; others contend simply that a person should be allowed to do whatever he can. These half-baked, libertine rationalizations are wrong.

Perhaps the most disingenuous argument is that Napster represents a way to "sock it to" the recording companies that take advantage of consumers and steal from artists. This might be called the "Napster as righter of social wrongs" approach. Society already has a term for these actions, though: aiding and abetting a crime.

Imagine for a moment that physical property--say, your house--were treated the same way. Visitors to your town, on a family vacation, could save on expenses if only they barge into your living room, hunker down on the sofa, flip the channels on your television, and plunder the leftover food from the fridge. Even better, such an approach may even help those who are otherwise homeless. That is pretty cool and it could be done. So why not?

The reason why not is because we in the United States value property--real or intellectual. We understand that owners of original notions must be able to profit from their ideas. Without this ability, our advances in medicine and technology would come to a screeching halt. Prosperity itself would be in peril.

Make no mistake: One reason the United States leads the world in technology, pharmaceuticals, and entertainment is that we have a system of laws that protect our right--a Constitutionally given right--to own property, whether physical or intellectual.

Should new recording artists have the advantage of being able to distribute their work via the Internet for free? Absolutely. Should individuals be able to trade music that has been provided without a claim of copyright protection? Yes again.

What should not be allowed, or even tolerated, is theft. And taking copyright-protected material and distributing broadly to individuals who do not pay for the use is theft.

If we do not value property, companies and individuals will cease innovating. If they can no longer make money from their ventures, book publishers, movie producers, and recording artists will stop producing entertainment.

Some Napster advocates think they are pulling a fast one: getting mountains of popular music for free. In fact, they just haven't calculated the real cost to them, to the country, and to our future.

The bottom line: Understand and act in your true interests. Protect intellectual property so you can benefit from greater wealth, health, and entertainment.

Bartlett Cleland is director of the Center for Technology Freedom at the Institute for Policy Innovation.

For more information ...

Life, Liberty, Property. Property rights are essential not only for prosperity, but for political freedom. (Commentary, March 1999, 5pp.)

Request PolicyBot document #1200128