Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 07, August 1998, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my original message to this group.

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 13:32:36 GMT