Re: copyright of briefs

On 10/18/96, jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com (John Noble) said:
>
> 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.

Is not that an argument too easily turned on its head? Would it not as well argue that there should be no copyright?

I think we are going to be forced to make a distinction-- perhaps not ad hoc, but a distinction.

Ironically the distinction will be forced upon us by what I would term the excesses of the last 20 years.

Technology has given everyone the power to publish. More and more of our social, cultural, scientific and political life is being conducted by self publication. What are we up to-- a third of a million web sites? A million public email postings a month?

At the same time we have removed any way of telling that for which copyright is desired, and that for which it is not. Instead we have taken the position that all is copyrighted lest some penny of possible payment escape.

I would venture, as a guess, that more is published in the world today for which copyright is not desired (nor appropiate) than the opposite. This message is an example.

If true, that is not a fact that can long endure with the idea that all should be protected. It does not endure now--copyright is broken tens of thousands of times a day. You broke it when you copied my message, I, when I copied yours.

Perhaps we will extend fair use to cover most of what is published, perhaps we will return to requiring a notice of copyright, perhaps we will abolish copyright, perhaps we will establish rules based on content or form. I think the notice requirement the preferable one offhand, but that there will be a change I am confident.

I think we have already reached the point where we could not endure a strict enforement of copyright-- and the damage to the purposes of free speech (as opposed to the formalistic cry) would be serious by widespread enforcement of copyright.

So-- come up with some creative ideas for classes of publication to avoid those ad hoc rules.

Regards,

John Lederer
<johnl[_at_]ibm.net>

Oregon, Wisconsin
(Big lutefisk church dinner coming up, only the Norwegians would turn failed attempts to make soap into a fund raiser ) Received on Mon Oct 21 1996 - 03:28:10 GMT