Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Christopher Gwyn <christopher[_at_]icopyright.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2000, Linda Gruber <linda[_at_]novelart.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why are copyright owners not compensated with fair market value like
> > other citizens who are forced to give up their private property due
> > to eminent domain?
>
> Copyright owners do receive "fair market value" -- and are not
> "forced to give up their private property". (Setting aside the
> question of whether an author or songwriter is properly compensated
> by whatever MegaCorp they sell the publishing rights to.) No
> governmental agency sets prices for copyrighted works, and --
> aside from some antitrust possibilities -- no governmental agency
> has the power to seize the copyright of a work.

You can say that if you don't accept that what I create is my property. If I created anything that was not protected under copyright law, I would have property rights in it. The government named my work something different so they could make up new laws to regulate it.  

> > Why are we singled out to have to give over the fruits of our
> > labor while others are not?
>
> Name one example of an author being forced to give up his or her
> US copyright before it expires? (And in particular before the
> period of time that it was originally copyrighted for.) Name one
> example of a living author being forced to give up the US copyright
> to his or her work created after the "Life plus X" provision being
> added to Copyright law?

I am talking about there being an expiration. The rights to my work should be perpetual as yours are in the ownership of any family heirloom.

> > Why shouldn't we have every right to fight to hold on to our
> > copyrights for as long as we can manage?
>
> You do have that right (or at least Disney does...) and law currently
> says that the copyright is yours -- unless you sell it -- for as long
> as you live, and your heirs might be able to continue benefiting from
> it even if you sold it during your life. And all of that ownership
> is tax-free, unlike real property which is taxed even if you are not
> making anything off of it.

Do states still tax personal property? I haven't lived in any state that did since I was a kid.  

> > In my view, the government had no right to take our private property
> > rights without paying us to begin with.
>
> I'll consider endorsing a perpetual copyright when authors give up
> their right to create and copyright derivative works from public
> domain material.

The public domain is not the presumed origin of creations by seasoned, professional creators. I guess I can imagine doing a work based on an old work with the specific intent of commenting on how times had changed. Maybe rendering something familiar with a new idea or employing a new style of art on an old piece to make an interesting point. I can think of such exceptions, but for the most part, I see the public domain as a great training ground for students gaining technique, knowledge of style, and rendering skills. The professionals creators I know generally try to be original. That's how society is pushed into the future.

> > At the very least, we should be compensated through lower taxation
> > on earnings we make during the course of the copyright term.
>
> As someone who would love to be able to support himself writing that
> has some very interesting possibilities to it, but authors already
> get to deduct a lot of expenses that those of us who do the bidding
> of others can not deduct.

A freelance professional writer is actually a small business and therefore should be able to deduct the expenses against the income of that business. When you do someone else's bidding, they handle the expenses.

> > Then after a lengthy term, the government could say it has paid
> > to take our property through eminent domain. A risk that all
> > citizens face when the government wants something.
>
> Growing up in the United States I've always seen the government as
> "of, by, and for" the people. Although I often do not agree with a
> significant percentage of the population of this country I've never
> felt that the government is separate from the citizenry. Unfortunately
> not every country is a democratic republic. But in the United States
> the use of eminent domain is something that is under the control of
> the people -- your friends and neighbors. Sometimes they agree with
> you and sometimes they don't.

Not in my experience. The government may hold hearings, but they don't have to listen to a word that is said. If the powers that be see a reason to take something, they will do it anyway for the benefit of the greater good.

> However the expiration of a copyright has nothing to do with eminent
> domain, an expiring copyright is much much more like the reversion of
> ownership to the "public domain" from which it grew. This leaves the
> "public domain" greatly enriched with intellectual ore from which
> authors can create -- and profit from -- new works with out fear that
> they will be denied the fruit of their creativity by some MegaCorp
> functionary or great-great-great grandchild of an earlier author.
> "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

Taking ones private property is what I say copyright term limits do. That's why I say creators should be compensated and not singled out as the only ones expected to do public service with our work.

In this new digital age the public domain poses a threat to creativity as never before. Anyone can decide to become a publisher of recycled public domain works by doing nothing more than reformatting them in electronic form. That's why the term limits should be extended. Congress has a duty to promote more original creation and thwart the recycling of public domain works which depress the market for creators of original content. Emerging authors should not be forced to compete with familiar titles and authors for a buyer's dollar in a fledgling eBook market.

Linda G.

Linda Gruber

-- 
Novel Art: Images of Fantasy and Reality
http://www.novelart.com/
<linda[_at_]novelart.com>