Amy's post sent me digging through my files for a comment from the 2000 election, when Ralph Nadar used a take-off on the MasterCard "Priceless" ad campaign:

Both the law and the social ethos need a better concept of the cultural commons. I bow to no one in my defense of the institution of private property,(5) but the protection of intellectual property should not be pushed too far, and the anti-dilution act and the Bono act both push in the wrong direction. If a creator of intellectual property is fortunate enough to hit such a rich chord of public resonance that the result becomes iconic-a Dr. Seuss, a Buffy, a Star Wars, perhaps a “Priceless”-then it should accept the bitter with the sweet, and the scope for parody, allusion, take-off, and imaginative adaptation should be broadened, not reduced. Since all creators are both borrowers and lenders, and admitting the importance of protection against direct theft, the effort to try to keep the accounts to the penny is ultimately destructive for everyone.

(5) See James V. DeLong, Property Matters: Why Property Rights Are Under Assault-And Why You Should Care (Free Press, 1997).

posted by James DeLong @ 3:00 PM | Liberty and IP

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)