Re: to the point/Latin mutteri

Dan Agin asks:
>
>So I'm asking an academic question: Is it
>possible the basic approach to intellectual property and copyright is
>logically flawed?

It certainly seems possible to me. But "logical flaws" tend to invoke attributions of stupidity and blame. Terms like "internally inconsistent" or "untenable" might be more appropriate for such a body of evolving text, since one can hardly argue that the original authors foresaw the stresses upon that body of text that the future might bring.

and Dan continues (with flak jacket):

>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.

I would not agree that this is the de facto situation. The litigations initiated by the SPA (Software Publishers Association) would not have been so successful as they seem to have been if this were true.

>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.
 

Suppose that all copying should be allowed, excluding sales. Then the issues of "what constitutes a derivative work (retinal perception, scanning, morphing, etc.)?" and "what constitutes distribution (fileserving, WWW, reprinting, etc.)?" still remain issues for the "proper" monetary compensation for original work.

The complexity may not really be eliminated, since just as many laws have to be made to govern concepts of distribution and originality.

How about this:

Copyright ceases to exist. Authors' work is (upon the act of authorship) placed in the public domain. If it is viewed as popular (valuable), they will become employed to produce more of this work, with employers (typically publishers and networks) controlling both distribution (viewing charges) and authors' salaries?

Would this be workable (and still preserve freedom of speech) if public channels of distribution (such as the current Internet) did not exist?

David Dailey
<david.p.dailey[_at_]williams.edu> Received on Sat Nov 19 1994 - 04:53:41 GMT