Re: Authors' rights (Was- R

From: Greg Elin <elin[_at_]interport.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:10:18 -0400 (EDT)

>On 5 Apr 1996, Martha Luehrmann wrote:

>>
>> I have been in too many fights on both sides of the copyright issue
>> to let this pass. If creators would create works regardless of the
>> amount of copyright protection their works will receive, why is it
>> that they will fight so determinedly for those 'unimportant' rights?

(1) Creative expression is a fundamental activity of humans. Every strata of every society produces and consumes original expressions. Artists and non-artists will continue to create original works regardless of copyright protection because expression, including fixed expression, is a nessary and essential aspect of human behavior.

(2) In absence of direct compensation for original works of authorship, the labor required to provide for the material means of existence limits the amount of labor (i.e., time and energy) available for creating original works of authorship. (There are only so many hours in the day. ) Inability to be compensated for labor on creative works limits both the quantity and quality of the creative work which can be produced. People do not create because copyright exists, but they get to create more often and more thoroughly because it does.

(3) Our notion of copyright can be traced to publishing industry trade-pact by the Stationer's Company (1500s) in which the members agreed not to reproduce works other members had entered into a registry. According to L. Patterson and S. Lindberg writing in their book, _The Nature of Copyright_ (1991), when censorship through the British Government's licensing of printing presses (Licensing Act of 1662) ended in 1694, the booksellers of the Stationer's Company strove to protect their printing monopolies by arguing an author was the original owner of his own writing. Because authors of the time customarily assigned all their rights to the stationers for a small one-time fee, this argument seem to guarantee the stationers' existing monopoly rights would stay in tact. Only by proving the author's natural right to ownership could the booksellers prove the validity of the transfer of ownership to them. In other words, the 'publishers' protected their 'rights' by recognizing/creating author 'rights.'

---

Greg Elin
elin[_at_]interport.net

Travel the American Internet from Silicon Alley to Silicon Valley:

                   http://www.totalny.com/live/ge

Received on Fri Apr 12 1996 - 14:14:25 GMT