Brian L. Frye

Machiavellian Intellectual Property

In his controversial essay, Faith-Based Intellectual Property, Mark Lemley argues that moral theories of intellectual property are wrong, because they are based on faith, rather than evidence. This article suggests that Lemley’s argument is controversial at least in part because it explicitly acknowledges that consequentialist and deontological theories of intellectual property rely on incompatible normative premises: consequentialist theories hold that intellectual property is justified only if it increases social welfare; deontological theories theories hold that intellectual property is justified even if it decreases social welfare. According to Berlin, the genius of Machiavelli was to recognize that when two moral theories have incompatible normative premises, societies may be forced to choose between the theories. But Berlin observed that it is possible to adopt different moral theories in different contexts. This article suggests that we can reconcile consequentialist and deontological theories of intellectual property by adopting a consequentialist public theory and deontological private theories.

The Dialectic of Obscenity

The story of Jack Smith’s film Flaming Creatures and the “Fortas Film Festival” illustrates the dialectic of obscenity. The obscenity doctrine expresses the conventional wisdom that the First Amendment actually protects art, and protects pornography only by extension. But Flaming Creatures and the Fortas Film Festival suggest that obscenity is dialectical. The obscenity doctrine provides the thesis: art protects pornography, by justifying the protection of sexual expression. Flaming Creatures and the Fortas Film Festival provide the antithesis: pornography protects art, by normalizing sexual expression. The history of obscenity law provides the synthesis: art and pornography protect each other. In other words, art transgresses and pornography reifies.