Re: to the point/Latin mutteri

Don Berman points out, and I agree, that the law cannot deal a priori with all possible combinations and permutations of real behavior. But the copyright law in the U.S. has been in a state of flux for a long time now, and no one seems able to formulate statutes that are universally acceptable. So I'm asking an academic question: Is it possible the basic approach to intellectual property and copyright is logically flawed? Suppose, for the sake of argument, we change the copyright law so that copying is acceptable (legal), but *sale* of any copies is a right retained exclusively by the copyright holder. This is actually the de facto situation in many areas of software and print publishing. It seems to me that much of the confusion concerning "fair use" and "market effects" would settle into the dust and no longer be a problem. It seems to me the crux of the problem is that as technology continues to evolve, the mere making of copies becomes trivialized, and a new concept of intellectual property rights needs to be put forward. After all, it's commercial gain that's wanted by artists, writers, and publishers, so maybe we ought to concentrate on the rights of selling and distribution rather than the making of copies. Something like that, anyway. Maybe we can devise new machinery to protect creative rewards (and incentives). Why not? And now I'll put on my flak jacket, thank you.  

Dan Agin
 Spectrum Press
 <specpress[_at_]genie.geis.com> Received on Fri Nov 18 1994 - 03:25:34 GMT