Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Katharine Colgan <katecolgan[_at_]comcast.net> wrote:

>

We have copyright system that encourages authors and artists to produce creative works. That should be sufficient.

> 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.

As long as these monopolies are limited in scope and time.

Corporations are not the only ones who have great interest in copyright extension. Many artists and authors have the same interest.

> 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.

Again, as long as copyright is limited in scope and time. The problem with your position is that you believe (falsely, in my opinion) that perpetual attribution is not a threat to free speech. I offer France as an example. Perpetual attribution is equivalent to perpetual control.

Why do you think that not providing attribution is sloppy? You really overlooked the practical issues in providing attribution. Is it feasible to provide 300 pages of attributions for a 100-page report?

As I said before, freedom is always a double-edged sword. It enables us to do good things. Also, it enables us to do bad things. When you try to restrict the freedom of speech by forbidding people to be sloppy, the freedom is gone for people no longer has the ability to decide whether and how much attribution is needed.

> 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.

I don't agree with this. Look around and see how many authors and artists desire Digital Rights Management (DRM) (as enabled by copyright) that control over how people use their works.

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: 5,668

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Thu Jun 26 2003 - 23:42:39 GMT