Progress of Science, Aggregation, and Other Thoughts

I think that great ideas have historically built upon the great ideas of previous generations. Accordingly, I have to agree with Lessig that treating creative property like Valenti wants us to would be dangerous because “the old guard” would be protected from natural innovation, thus causing progress to stagnate. I think it’s interesting at this point to consider Eldred v. Ashcroft and the specific clause that deals with promoting “the Progress of Science.” As Justice Stevens suggests in his dissent, the whole idea of protecting creativity through copyright law is valid and admirable because people won’t innovate if their creations can be stolen upon publication, but an extension of the “limited time” clause (and an overall expansion of copyright law) is what is worrisome because the return of intellectual property to the public domain is also vital in ensuring generational progress of science.

One of the other readings this week (Litman, I think) discussed drawing a distinction between those who use music for personal use (your typical teenager downloading a few popular songs) and those whose use of the music affects the market, like Napster—a file sharing system that does little to promote creativity. I like this idea, but I'm unsure where the line could be drawn and how. On a related note, now more than ever, it seems that the Internet has facilitated a marketplace in which it is much easier to profit through aggregating material instead of creating it. We can also see this development through the rise of Google and the fall of newspapers. How does copyright law address this trend towards aggregation and away from creation of content, (if it does at all)?


More Questions for Discussion: When is more creativity encouraged: when we protect the interests of inventors, which in turn, promote people to create? Or is it when copyright laws are not extended and people are able to build upon the work of one another and collaborate without fear of being in violation of copyright? Has the answer to this question changed since the advent of the Internet?