Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > While I'd argue for a significant time period before permanent lapse of
> > copyright to an author, preferably several years, my general feeling is
> > that if the author cannot find a publisher willing to publish a work,
> > then there probably is little or no commercial interest in it.
>
> This paragraph presupposes that the only value to a copyrighted work
> is in the commercial viability of the work. Is this an assumption
> we ought to make? Under the U.S. Constitution, the goal is to promote
> the sciences and the "useful arts," and granting copyright (including
> commercial) monopoly is a means to that end. The "value" under our
> scheme lies in the creation of original works, NOT in the money
> derived from them -- that's an impetus to creativity (for some --
> many artists and writers have no intention of getting rich off their
> creations), but not the ultimate target.

If I may be allowed to interpret my own words, the assumption of the paragraph is that if an author expects another organization to publish his or her works, then it is reasonable to suppose that this organization can expect financial gain in the process. If the book won't sell on the general market, why force a publisher to publish it? If the publisher can't sell the book -- under the monopoly granted by copyright law -- is the monopoly necessary or of further benefit? Or does it simply act to restrain *any* party from distributing the work.

By lapsing copyright, it is legal for another party to publish the book, or copy it.

I read the same Constitutional mandate you cite, to a different end. The value of the work is its benefit to society. To promote this end, a limited monopoly is granted to ensure that sufficient compensation is awarded an author (and by extension the publisher) for the expense of preparing and publishing the work. If the work won't sell, period, then the monopoly is of no further use, and merely restricts broader distribution of the work, counter to the Constitutional mandate and intent.

-- 
Karsten M. Self (kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com)

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
    Welchen Teil von "gestalt" verstehen Sie nicht?

web:       http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
SAS/Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html    

  2:11am  up 54 days, 23:40,  1 user,  load average: 1.06, 1.04, 1.09