Essay Example on Faction Lobbying: Impact on Copyright Terms?

James Madison defined factions as a group of individuals, especially citizens, either majority or minority united and actuated by common passion or interests detrimental to the interest of the community or rights of citizens. Copyrights protect intellectual property from exploitation, increasing the profits from the contents. Lobbying can be used to change the copyright-terms, which may be reflected as faction efforts. This paper aims at evaluating the question, "Would a group lobbying for copyright terms never to expire be considered by you as a faction under Madison's definition?" I will address this question in two parts based on the economic and political system, and I will also include the philosophy of copyrights. Based on lobbying for unlimited copyrights, consideration of particular groups of people as a faction depends on the lobby target for unlimited copyrights.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Economically, it would be illogical for a group of people to ask for unrestricted authorization for everything. Capitalism operates through the control of factors of production, and unlimited copyrights will deviate from the provisions of the capitalistic market. However, since I don't have the exact scenario of what they are lobbying for, I will assume any profitable service or product that fits a capitalistic society. It may be a Law they are promoting that benefits their business or services. In that case, I would say that they are a faction group to me by James Madison's definition. Unlimited copyrights would kill the chance of competition, which is an essential element in a capitalistic society. Competition is sort of what James Madison described in his federalist 10th as a balancing tool of faction. Since he knew that it would be challenging to distribute property equally, which was the central element of faction, competition in my understanding can be easily translated as a balancing tool of faction group. Limited copyrights help people to flourish their intellectual capabilities that equalize society. For example, the technology of Italian Pizza making; even though Pizza is Italian food, not only Italian people can open a pizzeria.

Therefore, the economic model and the product or service determines the significance of the unlimited copyright lobby. In terms of the economic model, in capitalist society lobbying for unlimited copyrights would violate the philosophy of the constitution as feared by Madison. The majority would get the monopoly, which is ultimately essential of faction. Therefore, competition eliminates tyranny and monopoly by limiting copyrights.

Production exhibits a similar perspective based on James Madison's Federalist 10. Suggesting unlimited authorization on certain products of interest will be considered a faction group relatively close to that described by James Madison in his Federalist 10. It would be the same if we had an unlimited presidential term or didn't have any checks and balances in our governmental structure. Similar to copyrights, even though James Madison doesn't talk about in his federalist 10th about copyrights and economic theory, it is easier to presume and translate to modern-day concerns. Unlimited copyrights would make a group of people be defendants and judges at the same time, which is one of the issues that James Madison explains in federalist 10th.

Advocacy entails convincing and definition of the profitability of the product or service. However, as I already mentioned, everything unlimited in capitalist society is what converts the people into faction groups. Why would they want to have unlimited copyrights on domestic goods if they don't differentiate themselves from others? Copyrights can be termed as the authorization to access some content that comes from the owner. Currently, we have reasonable limitations on copyright, which is the authors' lifetime plus 75 years. Anything unlimited splits people apart and makes a particular group of people dominance over others. In some cases, the faction group thinks that others don't deserve to benefit from the same resources.

Since everyone, except native Americans, came as emigrants on this land, let us assume that a group of emigrants arrived in the United States and brought their unique technique of construction of glass buildings or buildings resilient to earthquakes. In my opinion, lobbying for unlimited rights would reflect into a faction group since they will be benefiting in the United States territory; therefore, no need for advocacy on unlimited production copyrights. Such faction groups cannot ask for a law that only permits them to build those kinds of the building since regulations will guide regulations construction. That would be against the philosophy that James Madison intended in federalist 10th. On the other hand, safety-based profits should allow for adoption by other people to improve the world and make it a better place for human habiting and activities.

However, I would also consider them as faction groups philosophically and politically. Because whiling to have something without any limits, is absolute freedom to me, which is a self-explanatory an element of pure democracy that James Madison describes in federalist 10. Therefore, since we are a republic, there is no place for unlimited freedom or pure democracy, especially when it comes to market and economy. Unlimited freedom will strengthen the majority of the group who can dominate the economy in many ways. For example, the majority can advocate certain types of laws that would benefit their business. As Madison says in Federalist 10, "Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets." That's the outcome of unlimited copyrights when it comes to profitable production and capitalist society.

In this case, since it would be a pure democracy, it won't be if we are talking about copyrights as they are linked to government regulations, and government regulations are purely political. Therefore, lobbying about something means the same as wanting something based on your interest. Lobbying about unlimited copyrights definitely wouldn't be medicine to the cure of cancer because, in that specific circumstances, everyone would be on the same page. That implies that the cure would benefit everyone and, therefore, would be in everyone's interest, deeming lobbying unnecessary.

Lobbying, on the other hand, would be necessary if there is a request for lobbying. Implying that lobbying is most effective when there is some form of resistance. The absence of resistance indicates all the citizens agree on the copyright provisions and, therefore, no need for lobbying. In this case, a group of people becomes a faction. In other words, if a group of people is lobbying for something, it means that certain service or product is not benefiting another certain group of people.

Since there is no clear indication of specific products in this question, I have to assume that lobbying for unlimited copyrights won't be possible for the entire nation. The human mind and gene present the uniqueness of each individual and the aspect of diversity, which makes it impossible for the whole of the nation to lobby for the same thing. Therefore, I would consider individuals lobbying for particular products or services as faction groups based on the essentials of tyrannical wishes.

According to James Madison federalist 10th, since we are in capitalist society and we share the market values, it is quite difficult to distribute property equally and, therefore, a significant problem of factions. However, establishing an equilibrium in modern copyrights by limiting and condemn any tyrannical approaches, which, in my opinion, is unlimited copyrights.

By limiting the copyright's, we have the chance to pursue equality by setting limits on certain things. However, the national treasure should be protected since it is between the nations. For example, the Japanese sword-making technique that only benefited the specific group of people. However, it did not do anything good for other nations; therefore, the Japanese cannot be termed as a faction in society because they have the unlimited authorship of sword making. In other words, you cannot be considered as faction group unless you are advocating something that deprives others of benefiting. For example, if a group of people advocates unlimited copyrights on a product that serves everyone equally, then a group of people would not be considered as a faction. In this case, the Japanese sword-making only benefits Japanese people and reflects Japanese culture.

Conclusion

Finally, I will defend my approach into two parts. First would be philosophically and second political. In terms of the philosophical approach to this question, the unlimited ownership of something is purely tyrannical to me. It ultimately loses value because other people are not able to experience the same. It is a kind of diminishing law as much you consume; you lose interest in a specific product. Politically, on the other hand, we share the philosophy that our fathers intended in our constitution, and amongst are brilliant work of James Madison, that explains how the property can be balanced. Balancing of property is the main concern in federalist 10th and also an essential of faction. Therefore, I am translating his thinking of balance in limited copyrights.