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.

You seem to say that publishing and production of dramatic works are not useful arts.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Sat Aug 08 1998 - 13:35:45 GMT