Compulsory licenses
I just read “G8 Summit Strengthens IP Protection; May Undercut Compulsory Licensing” over at IP-Watch.com. I normally don’t visit this site often, but the “compulsory license” in the article’s title grabbed my attention. I’ve argued against the compulsory license the United States government grants webcasters, but this was the first time I’ve seen the term “compulsory license” used in a different issue, so I thought that I might address the term by itself.
A “compulsory license” is a license that allows individuals to use or receive someone’s intellectual property without consent of the owner of that property. It’s called a “compulsory” license precisely because the owner is compelled (through government force) to accept whatever terms the government sets, regardless of his will. Regardless of whether the terms increase or (more likely) decrease the money the owner would have received had he set his own terms, compulsory licenses are essentially a take-over of someone else’s property. The government may acknowledge “ownership” of some piece of intellectual property, but they won’t allow owner to control it.
And when we are dealing with intellectual property, what else does a property owner have if he can’t control what is done with that property? Nothing.
The term “compulsory license” is just a tool for people to advocate for the theft of people’s intellectual property without saying so. To have a “license” to do something means you have permission, but permission from whom? The person who created and owned the property, or the government? People who push compulsory licenses for anything, whether it’s music royalty rates or new drugs, believe the government should be the one who grants permission.
Tags: [compulsory licenses, intellectual property, internet radio]Comments
Leave a Reply