Re: to the point/Latin mutteri

Buford Terrell writes:
>
>The real problem with both of these solutions is that they look at
>the economic results of copying, but do nothing about the problems of
>artistic integrity and attribution. If I deny someone the right to
>translate my book into german, it may be because he has not paid
>me enough money or it may be that I think he is a lousy translator
>who will not do my book justice. It will probably be some combination
>of both reasons. I think one of the main reasons that many of us
>do not give open permission for our Net postings to be freely re-
>published is that we are afraid of being misquoted or quoted out of
>context. The lack of payment is only a small part of the reason
>for refusal. Several schemes-- ASCAP models, modem taxes, charges
>per bit, etc -- would solve the payment problem, but I have not seen
>any that offer protection of the artist's integrity.

Now we're getting somewhere. I have always thought it strange that copyright law does not include a right of attribution, with the apparent result that if I can copy something (under, say, the fair use doctrine), I can copy it without attribution. This is plagiarism, but not copyright infringement.

Query for the world at large: in the limited environs of the net, would a right of attribution which *replaced* copyright be satisfactory?

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor
University of Texas School of Law
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu [Note -- this is a new address] Received on Wed Nov 23 1994 - 16:16:21 GMT