Essay Sample on Copyrights Should Not Be Equated With Fundamental Rights of Life and Liberty

Copyrights of production that are aimed for a profit should not be equally recognized as other fundamental rights such as liberty and life. The reason why copyrights should not be equalized, as a higher level of importance in the constitution, is that Life and Liberty should be equally important for every individual based on fundamental rights. Therefore, copyrights are a distinguished philosophy, and it should have limits in terms of time and authorization. Besides, copyrights and intellectual work are opinion based. For example, a person might never respect someone's work that they have done, but everyone is responsible for recognizing life and liberty in a constitutional democracy (Class Notes).

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

Save 25%

Furthermore, because the copyright philosophy also depends on the economic system, it should have some time limits in the case to avoid the tyrannical type of ownership, which is close to John Locks theory of property rights (Class Notes). I compared the copyrights to economic theory based on a question from our previous class lectures. "Why do we not have the specific economic theory in our constitution?" and philosophy in both cases should be the same to answer the question. It is because framers knew that society would develop in many ways and, specifying something in the constitution is similar to if the person would make a permanent tattoo, which means that it would be challenging to remove it later if a person decides to (Scoltock, 2010). That is why equilibrium is one of the characters of the copyright that in case we need to change then. The limitless time guarantees that someone would not take advantage of and get a monopoly on the product, which benefits the general society (Class notes).

Therefore, by limits and regulations, it should fit in our economic system, which is also not mentioned in our constitution; this can be viewed as a beneficiary factor in some cases. For example, people can have a chance to take advantage of copyright limitations. Meaning that since copyrights are linked to production and economic system, it should be balanced, and behind that balance must be a philosophy that keeps the production going (Class notes).

However, it should not be diminished in the constitution. It must be protected at some point to give individuals innovators the motivation of developing hope to extend the work and flourish the intellectual capabilities. That is what is mentioned in our class notes that article one of the constitutions which explains the following; "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" (Class Notes). The given time limit lifetime + 70 years" should be enough to make essential marks in society if the work is necessary (class notes).

In a capitalist system, it is essential to have some protection to make individuals and market more productive; it is in the interest of the capitalist state. When a person uses its intellectual capabilities and figures out, for example, the alternative way to get to a particular scientific fact, copyright law must protect it (Class notes). For instance, if a person reviews the math formula and all of a sudden, he discovers an alternative way of simplifying that formula. This capability is no dough should be protected in our system at a higher level.

However, it does not mean that people cannot use it to take advantage and create new ideas based on the original formula. I would compare to John Locks understanding of using a property. It is similar to equalize the opportunity for people and not take advantage of the law and became a monopolist (class notes). For example, electricity has been around so many years and been converted and expended in different ways by different people (Schiller, 2011). Benjamin Franklin, for example, tried to expend its existence and bring it to society.

Today, we have tremendously developed it, and people figured out how to convert the electricity to create electric vehicles. So that is why it is essential to understand what is going to be protected by the balanced copyrights, and based on the product, it should have limited time protection. However, the fact that electricity is used in vehicles today is generalized, which means that many car manufacturers are making electric vehicles. However, the way of making should be protected. That is why this protection is very purposely mentioned in our constitution. Without intellectual property rights, the nation with borders cannot be developed and keep up with the competition around the world. However, it also would not be possible if the constitution gives limitless rights to the author of the production because it would violate the interest of our republic. It will be tyrannical if only one person gets the privilege to produce something.

Let us use the car industry as an example since I already mentioned vehicles above; there are between 10 -14 major car manufacturers in the world that can compete with each other. Each brand has its designers, mechanical engineers, Aerodynamic experts, and others. What it means is that they compete to design and create the most quality, safe, and desirable art for the consumers. They are using the same natural discoveries and resources that someone has already found before them. However, they try to formulate in different ways. Like the car engine can be more efficient or less efficient, it depends on people and how they approach the basic formulas and materials that the engine requires to work correctly.

It is good to take a look at the case that happened to Ford manufacturer when it is a major secrete of production (intellectual property) got stolen by the Chinese and FBI, fortunately, busted that person. He was employed at Ford (Office. 2011). He took the Fords significant designs for almost every vehicle: "Included in those documents were system design specifications for the Engine/Transmission Mounting Subsystem, Electrical Distribution System, Electric Power Supply, Electrical Subsystem, and Generic Body Module, among others" (U.S. Attorney's Office April 12, 2011). There is no doubt that transmission or engine exists a long time. Still, the program in the car's computer that operated those modules and mechanisms was specifically designed and written by Ford engineers (Office. 2011).

It is essential to have this law in the constitution to protect artists and engineers who can positively change the world. When I say changing the world, I mean that those engineers who worked on specific details could put them together and create new safety for the car industry or generally help the society to develop and get advanced. Therefore, the balanced copyright laws do not restrict other manufacturers to stop using some general ideas; for example, how the relay of vehicle works, but they can protect the design of the system that operates the relay in different ways. Therefore, copyright law must protect that particular approach, but we should let other people use the general sources.

However, a controversial argument why we should have balanced and limited copyrights and can be equally important as life and liberty is the Volvos three-point belt system. Nils Bohlin, who was the mechanical engineer at Volvo, first designed the three-point safety belt system in the car industry. His work made it possible to equip all late model cars with the 3-point belt system.

Volvo introduced the system and saved millions of lives, according to Scoltock (2010). These other car manufacturers are also making a profit using Nils Bohlin's invention in the car industry but, Volvo cannot come out and say, oh, this was one of the company engineer's designs, and one cannot sell vehicles with similar safety futures anymore unless he or she pays compensation. Indeed, as mentioned above, that this law fits in a capitalist society better than any other economic ideology (Schiller, 2011). Therefore, it is mentioned in the constitution to be balanced and has limited time protection.

Moreover, the most important aspect of copyright law is to understand what product is going to do to society or the public. Even though if its literature or technology, such as this 3-point belt system, if it benefits the community, the capitalist system can take some control over it because of how the market works. Similar to an imminent domain that is discussed in the previous classes (Kelo v. City of New London). Even the literature or diaries are restricted from full authorship if it is meant to be for the public. For example, copyright law could not protect our current case study of Folsom v. Marsh's case when Judge Store explained that President Washington's letters because it was meant to benefit society. Therefore, I do not think that we should recognize or specify copyrights in our constitution higher than it is to avoid monopolistic ownership of the product.

Finally, there is no such thing on the planet that only one person can do. Therefore, wise people decide to give a chance to other people to try to multiply the talent. Copyrights are a great way to control society from monopoly and even duopoly (Schiller, 2011). This advantage of the limited time and balanced copyrights would be the restriction of authorization on the specific product, which prevents monopoly (class notes). However, it is based on a case and economic system because Polaroid Corporation, for example, won the case against Kodak when there was a battle about the instant camera. This move finally negatively affected consumers' pockets.

References

Office, U. A. (2011, April 12). Chinese National Sentenced for Stealing Ford Trade Secrets. Retrieved from FBI: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/detroit/press-releases/2011/de041211.htm

Schiller, B. E. (2011). Essentials of Economics 8th Edition. Reno: McGraw Hill Irwin.

Scoltock, J. (2010). Nils Bohlin. Automotive Engineer, 35(1), 7.