A debate has brewed on the internet this week about intellectual property law, starting with Matt Yglesias's post about declining music revenues.

It is, of course, possible that at some point the digital music situation will start imperiling the ability of consumers to enjoy music. The purpose of intellectual property law is to prevent that from happening... But I don’t know anyone who would seriously argue that a music fan in 2010 is in worse shape than a music fan in 1990 was. It’s much, much, much easier to find and listen to a wide variety of songs from all over the world.

I agree whole heartedly, the convenience of digital music stimulates the demand side, in consumption if not in price, even as the cost of producing music has plummeted with digital recording techniques leading to a huge increase in the availability and variety of music.  That I can read Pitchfork about an interesting album with my coffee and download it to listen to on my way to work is a daily miracle of welfare by technology.  Not everyone is so sanguine, however, Sonny Bunch's reply to Ygelias bordered on histronic:

No! False! The purpose of intellectual property law has very little to do with Matt Yglesias being able to enjoy a wide variety of new music. The purpose of intellectual property law is to protect the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts. The purpose of intellectual property law is to punish people who steal that which isn’t theirs...

I sometimes look at what my generation has done with their access to Napster, Kazaa and bit torrents, and the ethics to which they subscribe when it comes to intellectual property and weep.

Sonny, first of all, seems a tad melodramatic; weeping over lost Lady Gaga revenues or your generation's ethics on intellectual property is a low even Glenn Beck wouldn't stoop to.  Chin up lad, we wouldn't steal a DVD!  His emotional response prompted a series of more rational- in that no one cried - rebuttals that focused on the nature of copyright law:

America’s Founders had a pretty clear view of this subject, which they enshrined in our Constitution, and it’s at odds with the story Bunch is trying to tell. The Founders placed property rights protection in the Fifth Amendment, reflecting its status as a fundamental right. In contrast, the copyright clause appears in Article I, Section 8. That’s a section that enumerates the powers of Congress, not the rights of citizens. Indeed, the Constitution does not require Congress to grant copyrights at all, and contains no specific protections for copyright holders. To the contrary, the only specific requirement is a limitation on copyright protection; it requires that copyrights—unlike traditional property rights—be “for limited times.” Finally, the Constitution contains an explicit statement that the purpose of copyright is a utilitarian one: to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.”

Many types of music that I enjoy, rap mixtapes and sample based electronic music in particular, have greatly benefited from internet distribution, both in that it has allowed creative scenes to develop anywhere and because digital music has made sampling easy.  The Avalanches Since I Left You would be on my no brainer "best of the decade" list and it exists entirely because of copyright violations: samples stolen and pieced together into something new and wonderful.  Thus the eroding of copyright has actually, in some cases, fostered "useful art."  At some point, the question becomes: does the current legal situation reflect the attitudes and interests of society at large?

The incredible strengthening of copyright laws with Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extention Act of 1998 has led to a situation where in all likelihood, no intellectual property will ever enter into the public domain without express permission of the owner again.  Sure the law currently is artist's lifetime plus 70 years, but in 2019 when Disney's exclusive right to Mickey Mouse again is threatened with expiration then Congress will again be pressed to extend copyrights.  A balance should be struct between encouraging and rewarding invention and allowing artists to borrow and expand upon concepts from before them.  Disney's most successful works, after all, were all stories written by others.

Back to file sharing, Lawrence Lessig has pointed out that our current laws on peer to peer downloading have created a situation where a huge segment of the population, disproportionately made up of young people, becomes comfortable disregarding laws it finds inconvienant.  He believes his undermines the rule of law generally.  From my, pretty libertarian perspective, when an activity is widely practiced and fits some amount of ethical guidelines- I'm thinking of some combination of "first do no harm" and the categorical imperative - it should be accommodated by the law.  I don't know what that accomodation would be, but clearly the system we have right now just pretends legitimacy and creates a mine field for rule breakers rather than a workable solution.

Finally, it should be remembered that while the fans take music for free, many artists also give it away.  Lil Wayne's million record week was built on a dozen mixtapes to grow his fanbase.  The categorical imperative, don't do anything that you wouldn't have everyone do, has already happened on the internet.  The internet makes distribution costs practically nothing in every industry; right this instant, in fact, I am spending my time writing an article that I'm just going to give away.  In fact, I'd love it if millions of people took it and didn't ever give me back anything other than their attention.  That's the market place of the internet and its not going anywhere.