In fact, the content corps really want to have it both ways! They want everyone to think of infringement as *theft* so to get the visceral response from the masses that this is EVIL and must be stopped. Yet, they want to claim damages as per infringement since they are orders of magnitude larger than for theft.

If I shoplift a DVD, that’s a misdemeanor and most likely a slap on the wrist—probably not even a fine if its a first offense (the cops might never even be called!). If I upload that same movie somewhere, the can make all kinds of claims about me being an illegal distributor of copyrighted material (despite the fact that they could only prove that their *authorized* agent downloaded it from my site) and hit me up for several hundred thousand dollars. And the irony is, if I got away with the shoplifting (or bought it outright), I could burn all kinds of copies and give them to friends and NEVER get caught!

(Warning: boring history content)
I certainly do not think that intellectual property is a big lie sold to us by content conglomerates. The first comprehensive copyright law – and for that matter the groundwork for all intellectual property law – was laid down by the British government in 1710, called the Statute of Anne. Just prior to the passage of the statute, a conglomerate called the Stationers’ Company held a de facto monopoly over all publication and distribution – in essence they controlled the flow of information. The Statute of Anne was a response to the concern that such control over information would have a devastating chilling effect on learning and creativity. The statute sought to give publication and distribution rights to the individuals responsible for the creation of those works, and it was this idea that Congress adopted in the first Copyright Act in 1790.

However, and this may be where we agree, things have changed. With work for hire and other doctrines which allow employers to own an employee’s intellectual property outright, I do think things have changed and moved beyond the original purpose of expanding the pool of public knowledge and encouraging creativity. But those issues lie heavily in the realm of contract law, where the presumption of employer ownership may be overcome.

That said, I believe that copyrights (and IP in general) do exist for the intended purpose of benefiting the public, and are NOT AT ALL big lies. I do worry however whether that intended purpose has been bastardized in the wake of corporations or other entities maintaining huge pools of IP which may only be used at their discretion.

There *is* copyright: the legal social agreement that gives a person the monopoly distribution power, for a *limited* time, of a particular expression of an idea. Since it is a social contract, it can NOT be stolen; it can only be infringed.

There *is* patent: the legal social agreement that gives an inventor the monopoly power to produce and distribute an invention, for a *limited* time, as detailed in the documents on file with the US Patent Office.

And there *is* trademark: the legal social agreement that a particular image and/or word group/phrase can be assigned to be representative of a specific company for so long as that company continues to claim its use.

All three of them have been horribly abused and twisted far beyond their original intent.

There *is* copyright: the legal social agreement that gives a person the monopoly distribution power, for a *limited* time, of a particular expression of an idea. Since it is a social contract, it can NOT be stolen; it can only be infringed.

There *is* patent: the legal social agreement that gives an inventor the monopoly power to produce and distribute an invention, for a *limited* time, as detailed in the documents on file with the US Patent Office.

And there *is* trademark: the legal social agreement that a particular image and/or word group/phrase can be assigned to be representative of a specific company for so long as that company continues to claim its use.

All three of them have been horribly abused and twisted far beyond their original intent.

Okay – let me address this. They are all a single concept, but this is just as true as saying that your home, your car, your computer and your lunchbox are passed off as a single concept. These all represent what we would call real and personal property, and they are all passed off as the concept of “property”. It is hardly a celebration of corporate interests to say that copyrights, trademarks, and patents all fit in under the concept of intellectual property

In fact, these categories were never put into place by corporate entities at all – they were put there (with the exception, perhaps, of patents) by common people with the hope that they may be rewarded for their creativity. Corporations surely benefit from these, and attempt with great might to control them, but the categorization of intellectual property is not some corporate creation.

Second, the Creative Commons is itself a product of federal copyright laws – it is designed as a way for individuals to grant royalty-free, non-exclusive licenses to all comers while also allowing the authors of those shared works to reserve certain rights in their shared works for themselves, such as the right to derivative works created therefrom.

I am all for celebrating the free flow of information, but it’s entirely off base to suggest that Intellectual Property itself needs to be celebrated against – it’s intellectual property which permits articles like these to be published and not completely ripped off. If Fox News were to decide that they liked what your article said and chose to take it word for word and publish to their site, making money off of every hit it received, I can’t imagine you would support that. Intellectual Property laws would give you the right to tell some greedy corporate giant to get off YOUR turf.