Re: Creativity in non-copyright world

Dan Agis <specpress[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 97, Albert Henderson <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Keith Handley <kehandley[_at_]amherst.edu> replied:
> > >
> > > Dan Agin of Spectrum Press Inc. <specpress[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I see absolutely no evidence (and correlations are NOT evidence)
> > > > that there is or was anything in our copyright laws that is or
> > > > was responsible for artistic productivity here. The idea is
> > > > sophomoric. It is one thing (and a good thing) to specialize in
> > > > copyright, it is something else to think the world turns on
> > > > copyright. The entire European Renaissance in art and
> > > > literature occurred without copyright or anything close to it.
> > > > The 19th century was extremely productive --- for the most part
> > > > without copyright. There are 5000 years of exquisite Indian and
> > > > Chinese art -- all produced without without copyright
> > > > protection.
> > >
> > > So it does seem that creativity can thrive with short copyright
> > > terms, say 14 years, since so much good stuff happened without
> > > copyright at all. Perhaps long copyright terms are stifling
> > > creativity?
> >
> > The missing point has to do with investment. When art meant a
> > single copy that satisfied a patron and an artist, copyright had
> > little impact. As reproduction technology developed, the right to
> > copy implied an investment in copies and distribution. Now some art
> > is created by teams organized by investors who are not patrons. If
> > they are unable to recoup their total investment and make a profit
> > from the small fraction of creativity that has a long life in the
> > marketplace, they will invest elsewhere.
>
> And the missing point here is that what we have been discussing is
> the idea that there is more creativity in the U.S. than elsewhere due
> to our copyright registration requirement -- and the answer is the
> idea has a false premise and an independently ridiculous conclusion.
>
> I am not in favor of abolishing copyright. But I am certainly in favor
> of abolishing pretensions concerning the effects of American copyright
> laws on American artistic productivity. There is no evidence except
> rhetoric, and that is not evidence.

Obviously, human creativity didn't suddenly come into existence with the enactment of the Statute of Anne in 1709. Copyright, however, makes it possible for creative people to make a living directly from the fruits of their creativity without relying upon the whims of wealthy patrons. I think it is more about securing a more just world than a more creative world; the creativity of the human spirit is not significantly influenced by legalconstructs such as copyright.

Edward Barrow
<edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> Received on Thu Oct 09 1997 - 19:46:06 GMT