Re: public domain question

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

No, the purpose there is to prevent proprietary companies from using it in proprietary software. PD software can't be copyrighted, but can be incorporated into proprietary software (i.e. binaries without source).

> 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?

Actually, it registers ownership of a government granted monopoly on the copying, distribution, etc of the expression. The expression itself is not owned. It's the monopoly that's treated as property. The public's rights come from the limits on the power of Congress to grant such monopolies.

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

Has this ever been used in a court case? (I'm seriously interested).

Lynn

Lynn Winebarger
<owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> Received on Thu Mar 30 2000 - 16:27:14 GMT