Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue . . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter.

This passage appears in the book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” in a section entitled “Patents and Copyrights” according to a website run by the Ayn Rand Institute. Based on this citation Rand might have opposed the copyright term extension laws that legislators around the world have passed in recent decades. (A longer version of the Ayn Rand quote on copyright and patents is here.)

I do not think that many of the traditional ideological stances rigidly dictate positions on whether copyright terms should be longer or shorter; nor on whether copyright should exist at all. For example, some people believe that a copyright on a text is a form of property that should be carefully protected. Others believe it is a government sanctioned monopoly that interferes with cultural development, creative sharing, and/or the free market.

David Rothman seems to say that “polite liberals” are losing a battle of ideas because people disagree with positions like Posner’s, and “young people” are flocking to the writings of Ayn Rand because of that disagreement. I’m simply saying that Posner’s position — that corporations can do this and it’s up to the market to convince them otherwise — is more in line with Rand’s beliefs than not. Those angered by the position and turning to Rand’s writings for consolation are probably going to be disappointed.

“…ceding ALL of the power to corporate entities. That’s the sort of things that Rand’s disciples cheer.”

Rand was not in favor of government control of corporations. Nor was she in favor of corporate control of government which is the problem we have had for centuries. Rand was not a proponent of the sort of corporate influence that today drives most government policy.

As far as a corporation (or individual for that matter) to be able to maintain control over their assets – why is that a problem? If I don’t like the policies/practices of a corporation I am free to take my business elsewhere. Rand was not in favor of any control, either government or corporate, that would preclude that exercise of choice.

If say, the New York Times wanted to prevent other web sites from linking to their site why shouldn’t they be able to do that?

In fact, all other web users should gladly oblige them by refusing to link to or even mention anything they produce. Google, Bing, Yahoo, et al should join in the boycott and refuse to spider/index their site.

When they see their traffic drop by 90% how long do you think it would take before they beg sites to link to their stuff?

To read this as some sort of mushy liberal assertion of power by the government is to ignore the fact that Posner is ceding ALL of the power to corporate entities. That’s the sort of things that Rand’s disciples cheer.