Re: copyright under stress

On 05/31/2000, David Hale <dhale[_at_]aggt.com> wrote:
>
> This is a really incredible post. Incredibly offensive, that is.

That was, of course, why I begged indulgence to reply to Kevin G. in kind.

> If I create something, it is mine, not yours, and not the public's.

I simply do not accept that, nor do I feel US Law (and ianal, obviously) supports that contention. Copyright creates a bundle of licensing rights to control use of the "creation", but does not assign ownership of that creation, except in "the original".

> I do not have to give you access to it; I can take it to my grave
> my secret.

Certainly; and by that mechanism whatever it was you created would not be art, and would be no greater loss than the work of potential artists who remain unborn because their parents have never met.

> If I don't have copyright to back me up, I will either
> not give you access without a contract in which you explicitly
> promise me your first born if you reproduce it, or I will not
> create it in the first place if such a contract is found to be
> not enforceable.

Given that I believe your cost (exclusive right to control your "creation") is too high, the fact that you refuse to sell is irrelevant.

> Copyright is not evil. It is simply a step (and money) saving
> device which allows me to distribute my works without having to
> go to the effort of drafting and having signed a contract limiting
> rights to redistribution.

The hypothetical situation where all creativity is governed by contract is absurd, and impossible. Culture does not function in the way you seem to be implying.

> those who violate the law with full knowledge [...]
> are not honest.

Unless you are simply claiming definitional equivalence, I disagree entirely. Unlawfulness does not equate to dishonesty; the social contract is only implied, after all.

> With no copyright, how does a performer create a revenue stream?

A large body of writing exists on this subject, which I do not propose to precis here. There are many alternatives to the exploitation of copyright as a source of income.

> the author of the next great American novel decides not to bother
> and spends his time day trading instead. THAT is a crime against
> civilization.

Arguments about "potential art" have no more validity than arguments about the "potential sale" lost when I hand a copy of my MS Office 2003 CD to a poor friend. (The only potential at stake is her ability to open and work with the industry-standard Word file format.)

> The founding fathers were not insane when they gave Congress the
> authority to establish copyrights (and patents) to promote science
> and the useful arts. They do.

I don't believe that is proved, and I'm not sure how you could claim to know this.

On 06/05/2000, Bill Lovell <wsl[_at_]cerebalaw.com> wrote:
>
> All of Mr. Hale's post is perfectly correct, and it is only those
> who seek a free ride from the creative who would argue otherwise.

I have been producing books and magazines as a small press publisher for over a decade, with no financial recompense (in fact, the habit costs me a great deal to pursue). I am not seeking any free rides; the work itself is the reward. I would not claim to be an artist, but contend that many artists work on a similar basis.

> Not to reiterate fundamental copyright law, but "information" is
> not subject to copyright protection, while "expression" is, and
> without the latter there would be no "Great American Novels" and
> we would all be worse off.

Control of expression leads to control of information -- perhaps inevitably. And again, your claim that artists require incentive to make art indicates either ignorance or disingenuousness.

CYa,
JEREMY Jeremy G. Byrne
<jeremy[_at_]iz.org> Received on Thu Jun 08 2000 - 10:07:05 GMT