Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

I think what Napster may be destroying is critical thinking about copyright.

This thread at times elevates copyright -- only a right not to be copied -- to an affirmative right of exclusion which is not the function of this form of IP.

Copyright does not, and I'd propose need not, live a "dodgy existence" (itself a rather cool characterization) in light of the first amendment. This is because copyright does not protect meaning. Copyright protects a particular articulation of 'something'. It does not protect or embrace the something.

So, create a evocative, provocative, and damn persuasive political speech and yes, there is a copyright preventing someone other than the copyright holder from copying the rabble rousing prose. But reference the right to vote, to not be taxed without having a representative, declare your intent to throw commodities into the local harbor in protest and you have not just knocked off or infringed some revolutionary speech -- you have fairly taken the ideas expressed in some speech and made proper use of those free and unclaimable elements.   

Copyright protects artful, unique, and distinctive EXPRESSIONS of a thought. But you are always free to take the thought and the critical thinking required is the delineation between idea and expression.

I tell clients the rule is: "Take my meaning, just don't touch my metaphor."

And as between an attorney and her client, who owns the copyright? Just a wee issue to consider.

Jamie Powers, Esq.
IP Policy
Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
Washington, D.C.
<jpowers[_at_]wbklaw.com> Received on Tue May 09 2000 - 18:17:50 GMT