On 9 Oct 97 at 15:57, David Shontz <shontz[_at_]uthscsa.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> No, the missing point in this entire thread is that there are
> different definitions of "artistic productivity" being used, and
> they have not been made sufficiently explicit. I understood pretty
> clearly from the original post (in the far past) that "artistic
> productivity" was measured by the economic return on works of art,
> of all kinds from fine arts, literature, film, etc.
>
> In the post below, Mr. Agin substituted a personal definition of
> "artistic productivity" that isn't made explicit, but is made by the
> example of the quantity and quality of art works produced during the
> Renaissance without copyright protection. He then stated the
> obvious point that copyright laws don't necessarily have any effect
> on this type of "artistic productivity".
>
> One can argue whether or not particular copyright laws contribute to
> either economic productivity or a more general qualitative
> environment. But let's make sure we are comparing apples with
> apples. The original argument was not fatuous, rhetorical,
> sophomoric, ignorant, ridiculous, or any of the other ad-hominem
> insults substituted for a refutation of the original economic
> argument.
Well, you may be right about the original posting, but my first posting was in response to statements made about the relation between the American registration requirement and American superior creativity. If anyone has any evidence for that, with or without an economic involvement of creativity, I would like to hear about it. Again, there is no evidence for American superior creativity, and there is no evidence for its dependence on any registration requirement. My point is that the other signatories to the Berne convention get along without any a registration requirement, and I see absolutely no reason to have it in the U.S. -- unless it is to the advantage of some special interest. And that is the question I posed in my first posting on this subject. Who is the special interest?
Dan Agin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:27 GMT