Re: The Eric Eldred Act

At 02:44 30/01/03 -0600, Linda G. wrote:
>> Creators' heirs already give more than other citizens.
>> Who else in our capitalistic society is forced to give
>> up valuable holdings to the public domain without any
>> compensation for the loss of income their unique property
>> can potentially produce?

If you allow that the laws of physics "force", then volunteer firefighters, people who donate blood, social party-throwers, committee members, community organisers, pro bono solicitors and open source programmers, off the top of my head, are equally put upon. Or do you believe some people's time and labour in returning something to society is more valuable than others'?

But perhaps it's the "unique" nature of the results of that work which makes it special (that unique nature consisting in a monopoly licence to extort access fees from the public, who might freely benefit from it otherwise)?

>> Public domain works could carry a distinctive mark

On the forehead, or the right hand?

>> The struggle to exercise the creators' supposedly exclusive
>> rights has become incredibly difficult due to rampant
>> infringement, ease of copying, instant access to worldwide
>> distribution, and increasing competition from republished
>> public domain works.

All of what you describe results in more members of the public getting more access to more art and culture, and yet you seek to characterise it negatively. Doesn't that tell you something about your position?

>children and spouses of creators often have to sacrifice for
>the sake of the "art." Maybe even more than the creator does.

So do those of drug-runners, mercenaries and day traders; and it's why most "great artists" are poverty-stricken loners.

>Being a creator is often a cottage industry with the entire
>family invested in the business.

Being a "creator" is not an industry, it is a lifestyle. It is a calling, a passion, a compulsion. Art is not a product, not 'content'. It's not a commodity to be bought and sold. It is the stuff of culture; a vast quilt we weave together of the multi-hued threads of our common heritage. Indeed, I believe it is the Nature of us, and that the impulse to logo-ize it, chop it up and hire it out in pieces runs counter to the reason we've evolved as a species.  

>They all deserve to be rewarded for the duration of their
>lives for their contribution, sacrifice, and continued marketing
>efforts.

What they really need, however, is to be rapidly disabused of the idea that "intellectual property" might possibly provide any kind of ongoing, stable source of income beyond this decade.

CYa,
JEREMY Received on Fri Jan 31 2003 - 10:27:59 GMT