Property law is often criticized for imposing forms of ownership which perpetuate hierarchy. Given that DRM and music copyrights are generally held by corporations, this raises another concern. Where corporations control both the contractual relationship with artists (or software engineers) and the property forms with consumers, they are able to perpetuate a system of governance which re-distributes wealth to their bottom line. All corporations strive towards monopoly power (it is the nature of capitalism to compete), and therefore the forms of property they promote will tend towards narrow ownership of previously unregulated aspects of our lives. Just as wealthy individuals have been able to create forms of property in land–such as an asset protection trust–which guards wealth via form (property) not equity (contract), so too can corporations promote property forms which tighten their grip over certain forms of information. Given the protections afforded property by the Constitution, we should probably ask twice before conveying such power to entities.

Anyway, I want to prepare a thoughtful response to Tim’s post and as many of the comments as I can cover. I’ll post either at openmarket.org or cordblomquist.com, my personal site. Either way, I’ll let Tim know when I’ve posted and hopefully we can continue our discussion next week after my weekend with new nephews is over.

There is a whole category of contracts which cannot be enforced. Society makes rules defining what are the terms of a sale of a car for example, which has the goal of preventing deep pocketed legally sophisticated entities taking advantage of those in an inferior bargaining position. Each time we do this, we have to weigh the plus’s and minus’s.

In any case, those laws, such as the DMCA, which delete basic freedoms, such as the First Amendment, have a particularly high hurdle.

So, I can support lemon laws for example that proscribe terms under which a car is sold to a consumer, but I can not abide by the erasure of the Frist Amendment, which I would suggest is in a special, prefered position.

First is, well, First.

A contract is a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.

Abolish copyright law and we’ll see just how many people will voluntarily prefer buying art from artists that require the signing of a contract that precludes, copying, public performance, or the production of derivative works.

To say that copyright law is a convenience for the benefit of the majority of people who would obviously prefer to make such contracts automatic is grievously disingenuous.

A contract is a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.

Abolish copyright law and we’ll see just how many people will voluntarily prefer buying art from artists that require the signing of a contract that precludes, copying, public performance, or the production of derivative works.

To say that copyright law is a convenience for the benefit of the majority of people who would obviously prefer to make such contracts automatic is grievously disingenuous.