The U.S. constitution sets a framework for Intellectual property rights. It gives Congress "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...".

Most readings of this passage suggest that the primary purpose of IP laws, as far as the constitution is concerned, should be to promote the progress of science and the arts, rather than to ensure profitability to inventors and artists. One interpretation, then, is that IP laws should only be in place that attempt to maximize the creative output of society as a whole.

Furthermore, the wording in the constitution states that "exclusive rights" should be granted for "limited times". After this limited time, the intellectual property should fall into the public domain, where it belongs to everyone.

One important point is that unlike Freedom of Speech the constitution says it will "grant" rights. In the case of Freedom of Speech, the bill of rights states that congress shall make no law abridging it. This suggests that the framers thought of freedom of speech as a natural right not derived from the constitution, but guaranteed by it. IP rights, on the other hand, are artificial. They are to be granted for the purpose of promoting the useful arts, but are not god given.

An important question is whether IP time limits and IP protectionism have gone too far. The first copyright law in the U.S. was for 14 years. This clearly suggests the kind of time limits the framers meant. However, over the years, the original 14 years has been extended. A few years ago Congress extended copyright from 75 to 95 years to protect Mickey Mouse. Is 95 years a reasonable "limited time"? This three generations, anyway, and no one associated with the creation of Mickey Mouse is still alive today to reap the rewards of this copyright.

Streaming Services:

Music streaming services such as Spotify pay low rates to artists. For example, Spotify less than 1 cent per stream. This means that an artist with a million streams stands to make less than $10,000. Whether this is a fair rate or not, it is clear that few artists can actually make a living through streaming audio or video alone. Despite these low rates, Spotify has not made a profit in recent years, so they are not merely taking the lion's share of the profits.

Video streaming:

In many ways, video streaming services attempt to fill the same business model that cable services started. Netflix is the largest of these, but many others exist. Companies generate and use IP to get subscribers to these services. The only way this works, however, is to make popular shows exclusive to a given streaming service. For example, the new show Star Trek discovery will be streamed exclusively on CBS all access in the United States:

https://decider.com/2017/09/27/star-trek-discovery-netflix-cbs-all-access/

The DMCA:

The 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibits "making, distributing, or using tools...to circumvent technological copyright protection systems". Is this reasonable, given that such tools have valid legal uses? The law makes no exception for "fair use" purposes.

Free Software:

A lot of the software we use everyday is free. Someone wrote it, and yet they chose to give it away. Have any of you ever grabbed a snippet of code of the Internet? That's free code. Why did people share it? Presumably, most of these people were working for companies at the time. Should these developers need permission from their employers to post small pieces of code online for free? Should there be a fee for using random code fragments found on the Internet? Most of us would probably agree that there should not. What about complete programs? Should they also be free? Most of us would probably say that the developers and companies who own the code should decide.

Have any of you ever used Linux, Emacs, Java, Python, Ruby, Firefox, Apache, the GIMP, Inkscape, Open Office, or Blender? These are all licensed under open licenses. Many are under the GNU public license, which allows free use of the software under the condition that if you extend or modify it you must apply the same agreement to the new work. This is sometimes called "copyleft" instead of "copyright". It is a copyright model designed to force openness.

---------- what is the summary of this article?

thank you