The problem with this book, is that you cannot argue for copyrights on one hand, and against them on the other. Either there is intellectual property or there is not. If there is not, then it is a government granted monopoly, and government granted monopolies can be shown to be less efficient then the market. As such, this means that copyrights would not do a better job at encouraging ingenuity. The thing is the book seems to talk about the philosophy of it a lot more then the reality of it.

The problem with this book, is that you cannot argue for copyrights on one hand, and against them on the other. Either there is intellectual property or there is not. If there is not, then it is a government granted monopoly, and government granted monopolies can be shown to be less efficient then the market. As such, this means that copyrights would not do a better job at encouraging ingenuity. The thing is the book seems to talk about the philosophy of it a lot more then the reality of it.

A great presentation on why we should go to copyleft or the creative commons.

This book does not really explore aspects of copy protection beyond profit. Copy protection's original purpose was to protect others from taking your intellectual work and pretending to be theirs without giving the original authors any credit. So yes, copyright protection is indeed important, as it encourages creativity when implemented properly.

I am writing this primarily to defend the style used by Dr. Vaidhyanathan in this book. The person who commented anonymously (as "a reader") suggested it was written at a second grade reading level. That was not a mistake.

I recently found an interview Dr. Vaidhyanathan gave to a magazine concerning this book, and he said that, "I went looking for a clearly written book for laypeople to read [about copyright], and I found that there wasn't one. I thought I should probably write one."

Copyright law is at best difficult to "translate", and and this book is an excellent beginner resource. "A Reader" complains that Dr. Vaidhyanathan is biased toward less restrictive copyright laws, but I can only imagine that "A Reader" is in fact a representative of a large corporation which holds very many copyrights it wishes to protect. I don't think that the average American who wishes to copy his/her CDs onto his/her iPod without being subject to prosecution would wish for more restrictive copyright laws.

Dr. Vaidhyanathan holds copyrights, but does not fight for very restrictive measures regarding his works. Think about what that means about his "bias."

As far as finding works which quote court decisions about copyright issues, and are written at a very highbrow level, just look for James Boyle's works. However, it is important to mention that he, also, believes that copyright laws have become very restrictive, especially since the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998.

I am writing this primarily to defend the style used by Dr. Vaidhyanathan in this book. The person who commented anonymously (as "a reader") suggested it was written at a second grade reading level. That was not a mistake.

I recently found an interview Dr. Vaidhyanathan gave to a magazine concerning this book, and he said that, "I went looking for a clearly written book for laypeople to read [about copyright], and I found that there wasn't one. I thought I should probably write one."

Copyright law is at best difficult to "translate", and and this book is an excellent beginner resource. "A Reader" complains that Dr. Vaidhyanathan is biased toward less restrictive copyright laws, but I can only imagine that "A Reader" is in fact a representative of a large corporation which holds very many copyrights it wishes to protect. I don't think that the average American who wishes to copy his/her CDs onto his/her iPod without being subject to prosecution would wish for more restrictive copyright laws.

Dr. Vaidhyanathan holds copyrights, but does not fight for very restrictive measures regarding his works. Think about what that means about his "bias."

As far as finding works which quote court decisions about copyright issues, and are written at a very highbrow level, just look for James Boyle's works. However, it is important to mention that he, also, believes that copyright laws have become very restrictive, especially since the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998.

This is an insightful though often quick and unfocused examination of the history of copyright law. Vaidhyanathan outlines the deceptively complicated realm of copyright law from its origins in medieval Europe to current issues with peer-to-peer networks and intellectual property. Through his sometimes creative use of legal precedents and historical trends, Vaidhyanathan reaches a few outstanding insights here, such as debunking the incorrect impression that the term "copyright" implies a right when it is actually a privilege; while modern crazes like hip-hop sampling and MP3 file sharing are not direct violations of copyright law but instead offer harsh illuminations of the gaps and inconsistencies in that law. Most importantly, the highly varied nuances and applications of copyright law in the past have been ruinously combined in recent years into the poorly defined, but disastrously applied, concept of intellectual property. Thus we have the modern corporatist view of everything as "property" that can be owned, bought, and sold, including ideas and expression.

Vaidhyanathan provides plenty of believable evidence that this troublesome doctrine, while often disingenuously trotted out to supposedly protect original creators, does little more than enrich corporations while also chilling free speech and restricting creativity. The problem with this book is Vaidhyanathan's poorly constructed writing style, with distracting jumps in subject matter and unnecessary academic theoretical investigations into phenomena of doubtful value to the reader. An example is the chapter-long dissertation on Mark Twain's certainly voluminous but questionably influential (or relevant) thoughts on copyright law. Meanwhile, Vaidhyanathan's goal of finding the best answers to these problems is trickled out in passing throughout the book, rather than appearing authoritatively in the book's very rushed conclusion. But otherwise, if you can handle some reader-unfriendly passages, this is an acceptable look at the complex world of copyright law and how it is currently moving in all the wrong directions. [~doomsdayer520~]

This is an insightful though often quick and unfocused examination of the history of copyright law. Vaidhyanathan outlines the deceptively complicated realm of copyright law from its origins in medieval Europe to current issues with peer-to-peer networks and intellectual property. Through his sometimes creative use of legal precedents and historical trends, Vaidhyanathan reaches a few outstanding insights here, such as debunking the incorrect impression that the term "copyright" implies a right when it is actually a privilege; while modern crazes like hip-hop sampling and MP3 file sharing are not direct violations of copyright law but instead offer harsh illuminations of the gaps and inconsistencies in that law. Most importantly, the highly varied nuances and applications of copyright law in the past have been ruinously combined in recent years into the poorly defined, but disastrously applied, concept of intellectual property. Thus we have the modern corporatist view of everything as "property" that can be owned, bought, and sold, including ideas and expression.

Vaidhyanathan provides plenty of believable evidence that this troublesome doctrine, while often disingenuously trotted out to supposedly protect original creators, does little more than enrich corporations while also chilling free speech and restricting creativity. The problem with this book is Vaidhyanathan's poorly constructed writing style, with distracting jumps in subject matter and unnecessary academic theoretical investigations into phenomena of doubtful value to the reader. An example is the chapter-long dissertation on Mark Twain's certainly voluminous but questionably influential (or relevant) thoughts on copyright law. Meanwhile, Vaidhyanathan's goal of finding the best answers to these problems is trickled out in passing throughout the book, rather than appearing authoritatively in the book's very rushed conclusion. But otherwise, if you can handle some reader-unfriendly passages, this is an acceptable look at the complex world of copyright law and how it is currently moving in all the wrong directions. [~doomsdayer520~]

Being in a special topics philosophy class, I was new to the whole intellectual policy and computer ethics field. I found this book to be as essential as James Moor's "What is Computer Ethics?" and Albert Borgmann's "Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry."

This book is great for beginners as well as some pros on this matter. It seemed like a perfect blend of what Noel Carroll calls in his "A Philosophy of Mass Art," mass art and avant-garde art - it is written in a style that the mass can understand (which defines mass art) yet challenges convential thinking and equips the reader with enough background knowledge early off to understand the rest of the book (avant-garde art usually doesn't even bother to give background knowledge as it is geared towards a certain field, not the masses).

Siva Vaidhyanathan did a masterful research in law and the history of law as he uncovers a bright story concerning intellectual property even from the time of the founding fathers of this nation. If you are a beginner in the field of IP, I suggest this book to be the first one that you read as it is an excellent base.

I have been reading your book and am alternately exhilarated and despairing. From other research on the web on this issue, I keep seeing over and over that without copyright protection, people wouldn't have incentive to create. What a load of muck. Creative people NEED to create. They also need to not starve to death, of course. But creating things in and of itself is rewarding. If money is what motivates someone, they should become stockbrokers or something that more honestly reflects their values. I think that motivation by money, and creativity are almost mutually exclusive; once money becomes the motive, creativity is dead, or at least mortally wounded. I know the thrill of creating. I do art without any compensation at all, because I need to and want to, and have been a computer programmer for years, marvelling that someone was willing to pay me for something that is so much FUN! Creativity is inherently rewarding.

This timely and wide-ranging book is useful on at least two levels. First, it rehearses some of the major steps and missteps that have brought us to where we are in the realm of copyright and intellectual property. Second, the book demonstrates explicitly some of the perils of the current legal framework.

Vaidhyanathan sets out his own objectives thus:

"This book has three goals. The first is to trace the development of American copyright law though the twentieth century. . . . The second goal is to succinctly and clearly outline the principles of copyright while describing the alarming erosion of the notion that copyright should protect specific expressions but not the ideas that lie beneath the expressions. The third and most important purpose of this book is to argue that American culture and politics would function better under a system that guarantees `thin' copyright protection -- just enough protection to encourage creativity, yet limited so that emerging artists, scholars, writers, and students can enjoy a right public domain and broad `fair use' of copyrighted material."

I believe that he succeeds on these terms. Even better, the book is very well written as prose, which we'd expect from a creative academic with long experience in print journalism. (The book is also full of fascinating tidbits. Did you know that Samuel Clemens would spend a weekend in Canada to register each of his books there? He did it to fortify his copyright protection throughout the Commonwealth.)

The chapters proceed more or less chronologically as Vaidhyanathan moves from early conceptions of copyright; through the careers of Mark Twain and D. W. Griffith as key users and developers of evolving notions of copyright; through the development of the modern recording industry, and its tangles with rap music in the past 25 years; and on into what I might call the copyright-command-and-control battles of the Internet era.

Along the way, he shows how we moved away from an older ideal of "thin" copyrights towards the modern regime of "thick" ones. In particular, he's strong in making the case that copyrights used to be -- and should be still -- the legal codification of a sort of utilitarian policy bargain. Vaidhyanathan drives home this interpretation time and again:

"Significantly, the founders, whether enamored of the virtuous potential of copyright as Washington was, enchanted by the machinery of incentive as Madison was, or alarmed by the threat of concentrated power as Jefferson was, did not argue for copyrights or patents as `property.' Copyright was a matter of policy, of a bargain among the state, its authors, and its citizens." (page 23)

"The law [the first American copyright statute, enacted in Connecticut in 1783] also required that the author `furnish the Public with sufficient Editions,' such that an author could not benefit from the protection of the law while restricting access to his work. Such a balance, a tradeoff, between public good and private reward served as the germinal idea of American copyright . . ." (page 44)

"Property rights in America are traditionally a matter of convention and agreement, and not, as the judge in [a case he's just been discussing] asserted, a matter of divine decree or `natural' law." (page 59)

Throughout the book, Vaidhyanathan is an ardent proponent of a system of "thin" copyrights. He argues such a regime would be more reflective of U.S. legal history (as demonstrated in the quotation above about the Founders); allow a better balance between private commercial interests and broader societal interests; and promotes both protection for the established artist -- for a limited time -- and then the availability of our common cultural heritage to emerging artists.

(In making this last argument, he covers some fascinating ground, particularly in contrasting the typically linear nature of European [and European-American] creativity and the typically circular nature of African [and Caribbean, and African-American] creativity. While his absorbing discussions of the creativity embodied in Delta Blues, reggae, and rap music effectively demonstrate the latter point, I would have liked him to give more credit to the great classical-music tradition of one composer offering arrangements of or variations upon the work of another.)

Standing against this ideal of thin copyrights is the current corporation-dominated regime of thick copyrights and "intellectual property". While Vaidhyanathan sometimes shades toward stridency in his dicsussion of this, he's quite apt is assessing its major ills. The system has progressively done away with the "bargain" discussed above, in favor of making ideas, and not merely their expressions, the "property" of owners, and especially of owners who have the lawyerly firepower to back up their claims. Such a regime tends to ignore or suppress the broader societal interests served by balanced principles of fair use, in favor of private commercial interests. And in general, the system promotes the haves while it ignores, chills, or actively bars the have-nots.

The new property-talk regime of thick copyrights is a relatively recent innovation -- it really picked up steam in the 1970s -- that has been immensely ramified by the growth of computer technology and networked sytems. Copyright holders -- especially large commercial interests -- now have the technology to enforce copyrights much more rigorously. And, as Vaidhyanathan rightly points out, wrongheaded and antidemocratic legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) puts too much of the police power behind such enforcement into the hands of the copyright holders themselves.

Fundamentally, Vaidhyanathan's got it right: ordinary citizens, newcomers, little people, and outsiders are getting the shaft at the expense of major corporations, the media Establishment, big wheels, and insiders. DMCA deserves to be opposed by clear-thinking citizens everywhere, and at some point we have to abandon the ridiculous prospect of extending copyrights ad infinitum. Though this book explicitly addresses the situation in the United States, folks beyond its borders should likewise heed its call to support better, freer, and fairer interpretations of copyright.

Copyrights and Copywrongs is an excellent read because it synthesizes all the important copyright issues into one book, minus the jargon-laden terms that only copyright professionals would understand. During this past winter, I've read roughly 15 books related to contemporary copyright law and this is the best one yet (by a country mile).

My favorite chapter, "Hep Cats and Copy Cats," does a brilliant job unveiling the recording industry's current practices in relation Hip Hop sampling. When you read it your blood will boil because it proves how far our laws have gone astray from the initial statement "To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts."

I would recommend this book to anyone who is engaged in popular music- musicians, producers, Dee Jays- as well as those who are interested in knowing more about the one-sidedness of American copyright law. Great job Siva!

I ordered this book expecting a thorough and unprejudiced recounting of the evolution of copyright law of the past 2 centuries. instead i got a very biased account of it. The author clearly leans toward the notion that copyright law is too restricting and tries to make that point strongly in all the evidence he sites. The evidence itself is not very compelling because it is presented is a very light manner, with very few quotes from actual court decisions. The author instead relies on trying to convince us by presenting his viewpoint of copyright law and his own commentary. instead of a complete account you get a one-sided presentation. The writing is also very elementary and reads as if it was geared toward the second grade. i was very dissappointed with this book and was barely able to finish it. i would not waste my time with this book.

I read this book as part of my research for a paper on the history of copyright policy. I found Vaidhyanathan to be both well-informed and a good writer. Unlike many resources on this topic, Copyrights and Copywrongs was quite interesting to read. Vaidhyanathan's book is both insightful and entertaining. If you've ever wondered how in the world something like Copyright policy could be interesting or relevant, you should pick up this book. Once you do, you'll almost certainly keep reading until you've reached the end. If you want to learn about the history of Copyright policy and how it affects you, you should definitely read this book. ...

If you live or work or play in cyberspace, you need to read this book. If you care about art, literature, music or culture, you need to read this book. If you believe in democracy, you need to read this book.

This book is the best introduction to the history of the 'copyright cartel' that is quickly and quietly turning us into a 'pay per thought' society.

I really enjoyed this book, not least because I am an academic and feel quite strongly about the importance of access to information. The public's rights to fair use of material for research, teaching, criticism, etc. are being infringed upon or ignored, and Vaidhyanathan does a fine job of explaining where those rights came from, how they have changed over the past hundred years or so, and the reasons why they are now in danger. Many current ideas about intellectual property do indeed threaten creativity. I enjoyed particularly the section on sampling in rap music, as well as the author's discussion of current efforts by large companies and organizations to exact payment for viewing any and all "content" (including scientific information, news, and other data that should not fall under copyright). Vaidhyanathan's discussion of the history of copyright law before the twentieth century was not as good as the rest of his analysis; I thought that the English precidents in the eighteenth century and earlier could have been explained a little more fully. However, over all, this was an engaging and informative book.