Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are plenty of other costs to produce a show. Why single out
> > copyright? What about the landlord, the utilities, the costumes and
> > props, the bookkeepers and administrators, etc., etc.
>
> 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.

Exclusivity is clearly within the bounds of copyright. Performance licenses may carry a non-compete assurance -- that no one else will be licensed within a given geographic area for a specific time.

No one forces you to perform copyrighted work. There's plenty in the public domain. You can also play in the park, drink from the public fountain, and admit the audience free of charge.

> 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.

Do you have a rational basis for defining "too long?"

> 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.

In what case is the copyright term unconsitutional? How is it an abomination?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Tue Aug 11 1998 - 14:11:47 GMT