Re: benefits of the public domain and limited copyright terms?

On Mon, 8 May 2000, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing is inherently "wrong" with perpetual copyright terms. There
> are, of course, policy pros and cons to such a system. In the United
> States, however, the public domain is necessary because copyright is
> permitted by our Constitution "for limited times" with the purpose of
> promoting science and the useful arts.

There are also the restrictions of the First Amendment.  

> Many other countries do not have such a policy underlying the grant
> of copyright. In such countries -- which recognize copyright as a
> "natural right" of the artist/author -- the only policy reason for
> having limited rather than perpetual terms of copyright ownership
> is to harmonize with other countries. I believe that copyright
> protection WAS regarded as perpetual in Germany for quite some time.

But can such natural rights be assigned? And shouldn't they die with the artist/author?

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/
        NOTE: junger[_at_]pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists