RE: Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

From: Katharine Colgan <katecolgan[_at_]comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:45:34 -0400

1. But you do want people to continue engaging in creative expression and scholarship?
2. I agree that corporate copyright extension is not in the public interest, although I don't see how Justice Ginsberg could have done anything else in Eldred. Individual creator copyright and patent--as commercial entities that make creation possible--are vital, however, to democracy and the republican form of government.
3. There is nothing incompatible between free speech and attribution of the tangible, concrete expression of others' ideas. Freedom of speech is not a license to be sloppy--that is, if you want respect.
4. Of course, knowledge should be accessible. Copyright is not the culprit. Media consolidation--and the concomitant private corporate ownership of thought and its subjugation to shareholder ROI and other private interests--is a much greater threat to freedom of knowledge and information.

-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Pietro Riolo Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:08 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote: >
> Laws against libel, slander, etc. certainly DO have an impact on free
speech
> rights, which is why the application of those areas of the law have been
> limited by the First Amendment.

Very excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.

> But I do NOT agree that free speech "allows" one to plagerize by copying
> ideas. The reason copyrights expire is because the Constitution requires
> that they be for a limited time. There may well be other reasons to
require
> attribution that may not infringe on free speech rights. I am against
> legally forced attribution just because of the difficulties in proof,
etc.,
> not because of any free speech rights.

France has no difficulty in requiring attribution. That country requires attribution because they prefer authorship and censorship (through moral rights) over free speech.

The U.S. should not be like that. Free speech and legally forced attribution cannot be reconciled in any way.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
http://www.boycottcopyright.com

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 5,675

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

#############################################################

This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to   the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>

Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Sun Jun 22 2003 - 23:45:34 GMT