Re: copyright of briefs

On 10/23/96, Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com> said:

>> 
>> If you paid me for copying my brief would I produce more?  Would I
>> produce better briefs?  If so, then have I not violated my client's
>> trust.

My point poorly made, was not so much to the ethics, as it was to the dysfunctionaility of applying copyright to a work which is required by the government to be produced.

In such a case copyright has no benefit and should not be applied. Indeed, its application is bad public policy as it actively harms the public inteerest in free speech without providing any benefit in terms of increased work.

Put simply, its principal effect is to retard the progress of knowledge.

The Constitution posits the "progress of science (knowledge)" as the purpose for which Congress may grant a limited monopoly on use.

In other words-- a brief might be copyrighted under current law, but I suggest that current law may be both bad policy and possibly unconstitutional.

I think that this constitutional problem will exist whenever we try to frame copyright in terms of "author's rights" rather than in terms of "public benefit".

Regards,

John Lederer
<johnl[_at_]ibm.net>  

Oregon, Wisconsin Received on Sun Oct 27 1996 - 19:55:23 GMT