Re: actuaries and copyright extension

On 4/18/96, Karjala, Dennis wrote:
>
> John Noble writes:
>>
>> I thought that a subsidy was the dedication of a public asset for
>> private benefit, while the dedication of a private asset to public
>> use was, in other circles, called something else.
>
> On what ground do you call copyright rights a "private asset"?
> Without a public statute, there would be no such rights. On what
> ground is the public required in such a statute to give to the
> copyright owner more than the benefit the public receives in return?

As I replied to Prof. Heald:

This is the nub of it, I guess. Its the fundamental point on which our points of view diverge. And all of the debate boils down to 'original works are public goods' vs. 'original works are private property.'

If I understand your point: its not a private asset because the creator enjoys rights only by virtue of (publicly ordained) legal fiat. But isn't that true of everything. I only enjoy the privacy of my home by virtue of the 4th Amendment and the common law of trespass. Either that or a bigger gun. Does the constitution and the Copyright Act _create_ or _recognize_ a property interest in authored works? Do "Grand Theft-- Auto" statutes _create_ or _recognize_ a property interest in my car?

J. Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com> Received on Sun Apr 21 1996 - 02:30:04 GMT