>> I wonder if NPR, claimed to be a “nonprofit,” has to pay the RIAA “royalties.” <<
I imagine that they need to have licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC to play songs controlled by those three copyright enforcers. I do remember watching C-SPAN once when somebody asked Bryan Lamb why his bumper music was always something written by Bach. He said it was to avoid paying for copyrighted songs.
>> The artists get little if any actual royalties <<
Maybe they don’t get enough. But if so, it’s something they need to negotiate with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the various publishers. I think it’s a marketplace matter, not a governmental problem.
>> Intangibles - intellectual clouds, light rays, electric pulses or sound waves are not property <<
Sorry, but if Congress and the Courts invest those intangibles with the status of property that can be bought and sold, then they are property, regardless of whether you approve.
>> If you’re a scholar, sell a book <<
What if somebody makes bootleg copies? Then the author gets no return whatsoever for his work.
>> There are enough penalties for plagiarism <<
That’s a totally different issue. And let’s ask Doris Kearns Goodwin, who seems to have paid no price at all for her plagiarism. Ditto for the CNN commentator Zakaria (I forget his first name) of Pakistani origin? I believe he’s still going strong, again despite his admitted plagiarism.
>> If you’re a singer, sell the record <<
Again, what if somebody makes bootleg copies of your record? You get no return.
>> “Intellectual property” as a concept is an open invitation to havoc <<
Tell it to the Founding Fathers, who had the wisdom to put patent and copyright protections into the Constitution. Even though they never used the modern term “intellectual property,” that’s exactly what we’ve had — in effect — for the last 226 years since the US Constitution became operative. It doesn’t mean, of course, that every single aspect of patent, trademark and copyright law as enacted by the Congress and interpreted by the Courts is wise or beneficial. Far from it. But as a general concept, intellectual property has long served us well.
Sorry for waiting so long for this reply; you make good points and I'm not opposed to some protection for artists and inventors.
I'm also not that familiar with the history of the development of that concept. But from my limited perspective this is what I see: originally monopolistic control over use and marketing of some technical innovation was extended to inventors who met criteria under examination by an expert. This was intended to encourage commercial expansion and technical innovation for the ultimate benefit of the entire country. Copyrights and trademark protections were similarly granted--I would argue-- more for the public benefit than for the individual who conceived it. I think that this reflects enlightenment thought (think Adam Smith,) not any utopian pre-marxist conception of the masses.
Also, remember that pure science, and art was largely the past time of the wealthy and admired as philanthropic activity.
Or so it seems to me.
When art and science became professions, it was reasonable to extend protections for publication and claims of authorship, but I don't think the original conceivers of these rules would have accepted the idea that ideas and conceptions could be claimed as property, or that patents and copyrights should ever benefit individual holders of those claims (who now very often are not the originators of the novelty) at the expense of future innovation or other fundamental rights.
That's putting the cart before the horse, and it is why I find "intellectual property" pernicious.