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

On Thu, May 11, 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> While you bring up good points that some may be unable to get
> permissions or pay royalties, it is far more often the case that
> people don't WANT to. They don't want to pay for something when
> they can simply take it.

Sorry, I can't resist butting in and objecting that I am extremely offended at such remarks. This is the sort of generalization that should never be accepted without being called. Sir, where is your survey or empirical study that proves your point? Do you really believe your fellow humans are so evil? How familiar are you with the development of the Internet?

My site Eldritch Press is free to all. Since my sole income is my weekly disability check, I can't afford to pay significant royalties or license fees to copyright owners. However, I do seek permission in every case and if I do not receive permission I do not publish. If I did publish, the consequences would be much more expensive than you indicate. I risk the penalties of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1998, 3 to 5 years in jail, up to $250,000 fine, seizure of all my computers and loss of my Internet connection.

In order to be able to determine who owns copyright, I rely on the documents from the U.S. Copyright Office. But, as you know, the law has been relaxed in the favor of the copyright owner recently and it is no longer necessary to register a renewal. Renewals before 1978 are not online at the Copyright Office web site. Some of us volunteers had to scan the CCE volumes before 1978 and place them online so we have the possibility of checking renewals (critical in the case of post-1922 works that may have gone into the public domain before 1998). If we did not respect copyright we would not have go to the trouble and expense of doing so.

I don't WANT to have to write letters begging permission. However, I WANT to follow the law and not go to jail. If those who love the law wish others to follow it, then they need to make it as easy as possible for others to understand it and incorporate its provisions into their lives. Copyright law today, sir, is no such law; if it were, it would not be suffering the assaults it daily undergoes. And citizens who attempt to use technology to enjoy popular culture are labeled "pirates" by careless people like you, when they are only attempting to enjoy fair use.

Finally, your economic premise is ludicrous. If what you are saying is, I don't WANT to pay for a loaf of bread if I can steal it, then you are wrong. I want to pay the baker for his work, because the bread would turn to clay in my mouth if I did not. You assume that someone who listens to a work for free would rationally pay whatever the copyright owner desires. This is not economics of the market as we know it. However, I feel no compunction about listening to the performance of a recorded song in a bar or restaurant in the U.S. without feeling the songwriter need be rewarded. U.S. law specifically provides for that use -- would you call it "piracy"?

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf