Re: copyright of briefs

On 10/16/96, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> Copyright is a restriction on free speech. It is allowed to "promote the
> progress of science [knowledge]"

Generally.

> In neither case does copyright provide a needed incentive to the author.
> In both cases copyright restricts public use of expression. Absent the
> incentive, I see only bad policy -- a restriction on free speech with no
> offsetting public benefit.

But if we upheld copyright protection, case by case, only for those works or classes of works which actually promote the progress of science, and where, on an ad hoc basis, we can determine that the author would not otherwise have been encouraged to create the work, it would be a very small corpus. And we would have to make to make extraordinarily subjective, content-based and inconsistent judgments about "progress" and "encouragement." So we instead have a general rule which affords protection to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." Now you may think that the works of Scientology don't contribute to the progress of science (and I frankly agree), and you may think that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't in it for the money (I'm dubious), but in any event a general rule is preferable to ad hoc assessment of his wisdom and motivation.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com> Received on Fri Oct 18 1996 - 10:38:58 GMT