Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:36:14AM -0500, Linda Gruber wrote:
> > ...
> > The longer copyright terms in my opinion only serve those very few
> > authors (actually heirs of authors) of very succesful works, and to
> > keep the market free from a lot of competition from PD works, such
> > as Dover publishes.
>
> That last clause is very important since anyone may say they are a publisher
> on the WWW.

Anyone may not only say they are a publisher on the WWW, but they can actually be one. Why not extend to authors and publishers on the web the same rights you claim for yourself?

>When ePublishers recycle the old works in the same marketplace
> with the new creations, they threaten the market for original creations. It
> was not such a threat before the world started to go digital. Now it is, and
> that's why now we need longer term limits.

Let's be clear that the copyright term we are discussing is this: 70 years after author's death vs. 50 years after author's death, or 95 years after first publication vs 75 years.

The only works this would affect would be those published in such years as 1923 or 1924. I've been trying to find a person who first published and copyrighted a work in those years, and who still holds a copyright, and who is willing to go to court to state under oath that her "market for original creations" is going to be stifled by a change in copyright law. I'll drive anywhere reasonable to pick her up and take her to testify. No corporations, estates, publishers--just authors.

Can you help me please?

Or you may review the works online at my WWW site and tell me which of these digital works threatens such creativity by the authors who wrote them. Or you can correspond with the authors, anthologists, students, and professors, who use the works at my site to express new creative ideas. Received on Sat Sep 02 2000 - 01:36:13 GMT