Copyright or No Copyright?

In John Perry Barlow’s article, The Economy of Ideas, he points out that while the usage of Copyrights and Patents were once reasonable, they are no longer effective. He says that in this world we live in today with computers and internet we cannot really enforce the laws like we once could. Before the Digital Age it was the object created itself that was protected, but now, online, where information is increasingly accessible, convenient, and abundant, it is the idea of the creation that now must be protected. Barlow says, “Since it is now possible to convey ideas from one mind to another without ever making them physical, we are now claiming to own ideas themselves and not merely their expression.” Barlow talks about the ever increasing usage of the Internet as a way to convey ideas. I found this statement of his to be particularly frightening: “While the Internet may never include every CPU on the planet, it is more than doubling every year and can be expected to become the principal medium of information conveyance, and perhaps eventually, the only one.” Not only would this kind of transformation make it increasingly harder for everyone to keep his or her ideas separate, but it would also change human nature in general. We are already looking for more and more ways to avoid human interaction. All we want to do is go about our own lives not ever spend time with others. What a strange world it will be if Barlow’s idea of the role the Internet will play in the future comes true!
The author of the article in The New York Times called “A Great Idea Lives Forever, Shouldn’t It’s Copyright?” is Mark Helprin. He says that the reason Copyrights don’t last forever is because of a clause in the Constitution. In his article he includes this quotation: “Congress shall have the power ‘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.’” He says the reason that the government has decided for Copyrights to be only temporary is because it says, “for limited Times.” However, he believes that this was included for a different reason—to “[allow] for infinite adjustment.”
I have to say that both of these writers make excellent points. Helprin is right when he says that it is unfair for the families of a writer to lose the rights to a book 70 years after the author has died. Helprin points out that it is not fair for a person’s family to lose the rights to their relative’s work because we would think it was crazy if there was this kind of restriction was put on “Bill Gate’s checkbook” or “Wal-Mart.” Even though I do not believe it is fair to take away a family’s rights to their grandmother of grandfather’s work and ideas, I do believe that at some point the rights to a particular work should not exist. Otherwise we would have people trying to trace their lineage to Plato. So I believe that we should extend the length of time a family can have rights but not indefinitely.
I agree with Barlow in that he believes that we are fighting a loosing battle when it comes to trying to enforce Copyright laws. He says that “dancing on the grave of copyright and patent will solve little, especially when so few are willing to admit that the occupant of this grave is even deceased, and so many are trying to uphold by force what can no longer be upheld by popular consent.” It is true that this digital age is different than what we were once accustomed to, but we should not give up on securing people’s ideas just like we should not stop having laws to secure someone’s property. We should only strive to come up with new and more effective ways to enforce our laws. If we do not try, then we will lose that special enthusiasm that people have to create something wonderful of their very own.