Copyright "monopolies" (was: ProCD)

On 02/24/97, Dan L. Burk <BURKDANL[_at_]LANMAIL.SHU.EDU> said:
>
> On 2/22/97, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > If one extends the government grant of monopoly by contract---why
> > doesn't one have a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint
> > of trade?
>
> Why do you say monopoly? Say rather "exclusive right."

Is there a functional difference in regard to copyright? The Supreme Court has often used the term "monopoly" or "copyright monopoly" to describe the right conferred by the government:

' In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."' US v. Paramount Pictures

> This may or may not be a monopoly, but I find it very difficult to think
> of circumstances where copyright would constitute a monopoly.

Isn't a copyright always a monopoly in regard to a particular expression? If I have the copyright to "War and Peace" I may sell it at any price I choose and no one else can offer 'War and Peace" for sale. My only price restraint is the level at which the public decides they would rather read "Gone with the Wind".

> Setting aside the situations where the statute requires compulsory
> licensing, I note that 1) independent creation is a defense, and 2) the
> price elasticity of demand should be fairly unconstrained because of the
> idea/expression doctrine.

Would this be an adequate description: 'The copyright holder holds no monopoly in regard to the idea, but he has a state granted monopoly in regard to a expression of the idea'.

Sometimes, of course, a monopoly in the expression may be very important because the particular expression is unique or important or the details of the expression critical--e.g. the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination, a copyright in Franklin Roosevelt's letters, or a copyright in the Washington State statutes (claimed). Many times not.

Regards,

John Lederer
<johnl[_at_]ibm.net>

Oregon, Wisconsin Received on Tue Feb 25 1997 - 13:18:34 GMT