On Mon, 8 May 2000, Jonathan Miller <jonmesq[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> I respectfully add that one basic premise of all copyright law is
> the protection of the integrity of author in light of the concept
> that act of creation is particular and has value. If I publish
> something you may not use it without my permission, may not adopt
> it without attribution, and you may not alter it. Various legal
> doctrines protect these simple concepts. You may name them.
Nonsense. The inherent right is the right to copy. We trade these in a social bargain to encourage writers and artists. But that does not mean monopolies so established have any claim to being natural rights. Of course, if you live in Continental Europe, the story may be different.
> Furthermore, the author of a creative work has the right benefit
> financially from that creative work. Thus the economic model is
Why would they have that inherent right? And if they do, why should that extend beyond any initial compensation (I don't see anyone proposing that the carpenter who built a door should get paid every time someone passes through it, though they might well have a right to be paid for the labor of creation)?
> spectacular for works in music, film and literature. Copyright
> acknowledges value in the act of manifesting the uncreated answering
> the age old question: Why bother?
Copyright does acknowledge value, it just doesn't acknowledge any inherent rights.
And, of course, the proper answer for "Why bother?" is "Because I must". That is, internal drive for answering various questions (whether through writing, art, or science) is the proper motivation. People who can't help but do what they do. It has nothing to do with economics.
Lynn
Lynn Winebarger
<owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org>
Received on Tue May 09 2000 - 23:57:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:39 GMT