Re: to the point/Latin mutteri

Dan Agin writes:
>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.

Taking a fresh new look at copyright may indeed lead us to a better way to balance interests, however, this proposal either goes too far or not far enough (I'm not sure which yet). This would indeed put many of the issues we have been discussing here to bed (i.e., can I make more than one archive copy of my software or can I copy a letter sent to me and give it to my attorney?). However, it leaves many issues unresolved and may create quite a few more.

>This [copying legal, sale illegal] is actually the de facto situation
>in many areas of software and print
>publishing.

Actually, no it's not. The SPA is going after a number of businesses that have made unauthorized copies of software applications even though the companies have only used and not sold those copies. Billboard has already taken internet providers to task for providing Billboard's Top 10 for free (if they actually had a copyright in those materials they would probably even have a winnable legal case :-) ). I'm sure there are many other examples in both software and print publishing. *Lots* of people will be *very* unhappy if anyone is allowed to copy and distribute their material as long as no money changes hands.

>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 would just eliminate these issues for works that were given away. It would not have an effect on the scenario where I incorporate your material in the book I plan on selling (in my dreams). You would still be quite unhappy at my making a profit on the basis of your hard work. I would still argue that I was just parodying (or critiquing or whatever) your material.

>It seems to me the crux of the problem is that as technology
>continues to evolve, the mere making of copies becomes trivialized,

Yes, this is perhaps the most important factor in why copyright needs to change to reflect changing technology. However, your proposal makes the impact of technology even more devastating to those who create (as opposed to those who copy). We can make copies of most published materials so cheaply that if your proposal was adopted, a small handful of people could put many of the print and software publishers out of business overnight by copying and distributing their products for free.

>and a new concept of intellectual property rights needs to be put forward.

Perhaps, but this very complex problem will probably require a more complex solution than what you propose.

>And now I'll put on my flak jacket, thank you.

The above not intended as flames just another set of inputs to the debate.

Nic Herriges
nic[_at_]analogy.com Received on Sat Nov 19 1994 - 00:05:49 GMT