Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:

>

I single out copyright, first of all, because this is the cni COPYRIGHT forum.

Second, I make a distinction. All the other costs you mention are for the exclusive use of something: the concert hall, a portion of the public water supply, the bookkeeper's time. When the orchestra uses the hall, no other orchestra can use it at the same time. A cup of water that the first cellist drinks can't be drunk by anyone else. But the rental on the music pays for very little, since the music is infinitely replicable at almost no cost. At first glance, it looks merely like paying extortion money to punks with baseball bats who collect 'tolls' for the use of the public sidewalk.

Copyright payments CAN be rationalized as society's payment, in installments, of a fair price to the creator of the work in exchange for the work. But this only makes sense if the term of copyright is not too long. The longer the term of copyright becomes, the less conscionable the payment demands become.

The underlying presuppositions of all my posts are (1) that limited copyright is no better than a necessary evil, and (2) perpetual copyright, apparently the dear desire of many in the publishing, film, and music industries, is not only unconstitutional -- it is an abomination.

Tim Phillips
<hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> Received on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 15:31:46 GMT