Re: public domain question

On Tue, Mar 28, 2000, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Copyright grants the right to copy, to the holder. This is
> meaningless unless the right is denied others. The copright
> holder then has the right to make, or authorize the making of,
> copies. Simple idea. Somewhat more complicated in practice.

So is the "copyleft" concept meaningless -- i.e., copyright with a license that specifically grants others the rights to copy the work? As far as I can tell, one big reason for such things as the GNU copyright is that some authors are afraid that others will take the work (even if it is published in the public domain, explicitly), register a copyright on it (or a minor variation of it) and then use that new copyright to prevent anyone else including the original author from copying the original.

Here, it seems to me, copyright doesn't mean the right to deny others rights to copy, but rather registers "ownership" or a bundle of rights to specific creative expression, including copying, making derivative works, publishing or not publishing, and so on. But if this "ownership" concept is okay, then why not go on to assert that the "public" has certain rights (fair use, etc., etc.) that are implicit in the creation and publication of any creative expression, copyrighted or not, and that can be affected by such matters as the GNU copyright and license?

In some ways this abstract argument about the "public domain" is similar to the "right to privacy" arguments. There may be no specific Constitutional or statutory basis for such a right. But some have argued (Mr Justice Douglas, I believe) that such rights "exist" and that it is NOT meaningless to discuss them:

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf