Re: droit de suite

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Denise Nicholson <nicholson.d[_at_]library.wits.ac.za> wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/03/2000, Jeroen Hellingman <jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's plenty of precedent for bequething intangible rights, as
> > > > in leaving one's heirs a large block of General Motors stock.
> > >
> > > They are quite different from copyrights, as they represent a share
> > > in real hardware, not in an abstract, non-physical entity. I do not
> > > want to equate those two things, as they are quite different in
> > > nature.
> >
> > They may not be as different as you assume.
> >
> > 1) What's copyrighted is a manuscript, which is neither abstract
> > nor non-physical. No manuscript, no copyright. That's why one
> > can't copyright an idea for a book that one never writes. The
> > reason there are postal charges for sending books and manuscripts
> > through the mails is that they aren't as "abstract, non-physical"
> > as you're assuming.
> >
> > 2) When a stockholder is said to "own" a fractional part of General
> > Motors, the usage is only nominal. It bestows no right to directly
> > control the company. The only control a stockholder has over a
> > company is indirect, exerted by voting the stock. All the stockholder
> > really owns, in the sense of being able to directly control it, is the
> > stock... either a paper certificate or an entry in somebody's ledger.
> >
> > Holding stock is very similar to holding citizenship. One might
> > say a nation nominally "belongs" to its citizens. But that doesn't
> > automatically bestow on each individual citizen the right to directly
> > control a pro rata share of the nation's land, wealth, natural
> > resources, or whatever. All the citizen has a right to do is vote,
> > an indirect means of controlling "his" or "her" nation.
> >
> > When people create wealth, it's not a bad idea to allow them to
> > bequeath that wealth to their heirs... whether the wealth consists
> > of a company that was established, paintings bequethed to heirs by
> > an artist, or royalty producing properties of any kind. Why is it
> > OK to bequeath an oil-well (which produces royalties) but not the
> > rights to a book manuscript (which produces royalties)?
> >
> > Actually, the price of books is rather low, and nobody is seriously
> > arguing that we need to eliminate copyright to spare the public any
> > harm done or hardships suffered by the price of books being "too high."
> > Royalties paid to a writer are rarely more than 5% or 10% of the cost
> > of a book, a mere piffle no more burdensome to the book-buyer than
> > sales taxes. Also, nobody seriously argues that there's any public
> > benefit to be gained by eliminating copyright -- that, say, if we
> > could get the price of books down by 10%, then people might do more
> > reading.
> >
> > So what drives the raging against copyright, if it isn't any kind
> > of desire for the public good? Seems to me it's the larcenous lust.
> > Eliminate copyright and you deprive the writer of the opportunity to
> > profit from his work. But you've correspondingly opened the door for
> > anyone other than the writer to profit from the writer's work. The
> > T. S. Eliot estate makes a million dollars a year from the literary
> > properties he left. Knock out copyright, and that million dollars
> > is up for grabs. Anyone, even you, could print and sell his books
> > without paying royalties and get a piece of the action. What I'm not
> > understanding is why you regard it as obnoxious if the money goes to
> > the writer or his heirs, and preferable that it go to anyone other
> > than the writer or his heirs.
>
> I agree the writer or his heirs should get some compensation under
> copyright. However, in most cases, it seems that the publishers
> benefit, not the writers. This is a bone of contention amongst
> many writers today. Copyright seems to protect the publishing
> industry, not the creators or authors.

As I understand it, copyright law protects the "rightsholder". Therefore, if copyright seems to protect the publishers, it must be because the publishers hold the copyrights. Now considering that the publishers aren't in the business (generally) of "creating" works, they would become rightsholders only if the authors/creators signed over their rights for their works. It would reasonably follow that the authors/creators were paid by the publisher to sell their rights at a price that both agreed upon.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the problem isn't that someone profits, it's WHO profits. I think Jerone hit the nail precisely on the head -- the railing against copyright appears to be fueled by the desire to profit from others' work and take the easy road.

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Wed Apr 05 2000 - 15:07:16 GMT