Re: copyright under stress

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Copyright also, and quite properly, restricts access to unpublished
> information by giving to the author the right to decide whether or
> not to publish the material in the first place. However, this
> function is to some extent redundant, since the need is also met
> by laws relating to privacy and confidentiality.
>
> Let us assume that there were no copyright law. It is unlikely that
> innovation or creativity would stop altogether, for humanity was
> innovative and creative long before copyright law surfaced. But
> the market for works of the intellect would be profoundly different.
> Much more work would be commissioned exclusively. The costs -- of
> the writer's time and any subsequent production investment -- would
> have to be borne by the first purchaser, who would be likely to
> require exclusive access enforced with confidentiality agreements.
> (Why should I pay a lot for something if my neighbour can then get
> it for free?). The consequence would be that access to information
> would be much more restricted.
>
> Copyright allied with easy reproduction means that many people can
> each pay a little towards the costs of producing creative works;
> without copyright -- and despite easy reproduction -- the trend would
> be towards a few people having to pay a great deal.

Edward, this is perhaps the most well-constructed, most eloquently stated contribution I have ever read on this list. Thank you for sharing such a simple but logical observation.

Regards,
Marty

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Fri Jun 16 2000 - 22:39:13 GMT