Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 11 Aug 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

I think publishers and distributors have just been Borked.

So all those not mentioned in the Constitution, according to you, are out of luck?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Thu Aug 13 1998 - 19:18:01 GMT