Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Sat, 06 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> We allow this contradiction because we view copyright as useful to
> society. It encourages authors to write.
>
> However, for several reasons, copyright's utility to society is
> diminishing, and the burden it places on free speech increasing.
> These reasons include:

I agree with your general point but diagree with specifics

> (1) Technological change. The core premise of copyright is that
> dissemination of content costs a lot of money. It doesn't anymore.

I disagree, the premise of copyright is that creation of works costs a lot of money and distribution doesn't.

> (2) Lack of utility to authors. Copyright has less and less utility
> to authors for a variety of reasons--the widespread transfer of
> copyright to the distributor/producer means that the author's critical
> legal issue is interpretation and enforcement of his contract not
> copyright, the increasing prevalence of "group" created works lessens
> copyright's importance. Did the fellow that did the lighting for
> "Titanic" have a copyright interest? Was his work critical to the
> end product?

That copyright is transfered to others would not be a problem if the author received appropriate compensation. If I receive a lump sum from a distributor in return for the copyright I simply capitalise the returns from my efforts rather than receiving the rewards as a stream over time.  

> (3) Overreaching. Possibly because of the special interest flaws in
> our political system, copyright legislation has gotten out of hand.
> We extend copyright for ridiculous periods at little or no benefit to
> society or authors. We elevate the commercial over the important by
> declaring ebrything copyrighted unless the author disclaims it. We
> attempt to prohibit devices that are by themselves of utility because
> they might be used to violate copyright. We create legal strictures
> that make lawbreakers of common moral citizens. We even allow
> copyrighting of secret material, thereby elevating the gain to the
> copyright holder far above the societal interest.

Spot on with this one IMHO

Pete Lukacs
<p.z.lukacs[_at_]city.ac.uk> Received on Mon May 08 2000 - 10:25:48 GMT