Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

From: Dan L Burk <BURKDANL[_at_]shu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:13:12 -0400

On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Constitutionally speaking, they probably aren't, since the founders stated their intent to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing rights to authors and inventors. Publishers and distributors aren't mentioned.

---

Dan L. Burk
Seton Hall University
burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu

---

Received on Tue Aug 11 1998 - 14:08:43 GMT