Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 10 Aug 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> On 07, August 1998, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Why not render the author his/her due? Publishing is a civilized profession. Pay royalties. Be a mensch.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Tue Aug 11 1998 - 20:51:52 GMT