Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Mon, 08 May 2000, Pete Lukacs <p.z.lukacs[_at_]city.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > (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.

My history is dimly remembered, but wasn't the primary reasoning of the original copyright statute (Statute of Anne?) based on the considerable capital expense of setting print?

> > (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.

What I was trying to express, awkwardly I fear, is that copyright is a step removed from the author in most modern cases. The author cares how much he gets paid by the publisher/disseminator. He does not care directly about copyright law, though I freely grant it is a once removed source of money... Indeed, copyright law, because it limits distribution may even be inimical to the author's interests, which often include fame (or at least the sort of professional fame that gains tenure), and spreading ideas.

John Lederer
<johnl[_at_]ibm.net> Received on Tue May 09 2000 - 22:33:54 GMT