Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

In a recent post, Linda Gruber pressed ALL of my "hot buttons," which I now interrupt with outbursts which, despite their sarcasm, make (I hope) an argumentative point or two.

>Taking ones private property is what I say copyright term limits do.

You are, of course, free to believe this, but it is NOT reflective of the Constitutional language granting copyrights and patents TO authors and inventors FROM the public. Taking an unAmerican approach to copyright is what I say your verbiage does.

>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.

Oh, c'mon . . . do you pay taxes? We ALL do some level of "public service" with our work. We can argue about where the balance points ought to be, but this suggestion that creators are "singled out" is just not credible.

>In this new digital age the public domain poses a threat to creativity
>as never before.

The public domain causing a THREAT to creativity? I'd have to label this doublespeak. In practice, public domain works are a constant source of new works . . . cf. Shakespeare, Disney, Andrew Lloyd Webber . . .or any of a bazillion other adapters, revisers, collage artists, and so forth routinely cited on this list.

>Anyone can decide to become a publisher of recycled
>public domain works by doing nothing more than reformatting them in
>electronic form.

And this is a BAD thing? Why? The public domain, thanks to Sonny Bono, has a hard cut -off of 1922 for about the next eighteen years. Should we REALLY expend a lot of time, energy, or money worrying about squeezing the last few nickels from pre-1922 works for the benefit of various "heirs and assigns?" Suppose you get your way, and "anyone" now has to pay the freight to become a "publisher." Wouldn't this likely mean that because this money is being spent to line the pockets of well-distant "heirs and assigns" that there is even LESS money available for the support of new works by active, current creative types (your ostensible goal)?

>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.

While we're at it, why not BURN all of the older public domain works .. . .thereby creating a thriving market for newer works? This "recycling" that you abhor also insures that wave after wave of aspiring creators have affordable access to the "best that has been thought and said." This, access, I imagine, is often quite inspiring to them. I can NOT muster any sympathy for a"creator" unwilling or unable to enter a market choked by the works of Nathaniel Hawthorne . .. . .

> Emerging authors should not be forced to compete
>with familiar titles and authors for a buyer's dollar in a fledgling
>eBook market.

After all, it's bad enough that they have to compete in the PRINT market, what with all of those inexpensive Dover Thrift Editions floating around!

I find this argument unbearable!

Of COURSE emerging artists should be forced to compete with familiar titles and authors - in the eBook market and in EVERY market. If you can't outsell "The Red Badge of Courage," it's not Congress's job to keep Stephen Crane off the Internet just because you, or somebody else MIGHT come up with something people MIGHT value someday. And the Internet is NOT finite. It's not like public domain works are crowding you out . . . secure some free webspace and post the great American novel! Or, follow Stephen King's example, and post the first two chapters, then demand payment for the remainder! Remember, you have a distinct advantage over Mr. Crane when it comes to the web marketing of your book . . . you're not DEAD. Why not exercise a smidgen of the same creative ability that ought to underpin that novel by applying it to the question . . . "how might this work best reach its intended readers?" If you can't close the gap between the money spent to market Crane's work and the money available to market your own, please do NOT look to copyright legislation to fix this for you.

Testily,

John Logie
Department of Rhetoric
University of Minnesota Received on Tue Aug 08 2000 - 01:15:17 GMT