Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 8/19/98, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, in fact, you can't, at least insofar as economic consumption is
> > > concerened. However, if you have discovered a way for two users to
> > > occupy the same space at the same time, I understand that the Nobel
> > > Physics Committee is actively soliciting nominations. You'll be a
> > > shoe-in.
> >
> > You are wrong. Many people can physically share use of of land,
> > particuarly if it is a large tract. They do so every day in public
> > places without the benefit of physicists. Some uses (f.e. landfill)
> > do consume the land, but so do some uses of copyrightable works
> > (remember Penn Station?).
>
> If you are truly incapable of grasping the obvious the fact that it is
> physically impossible for two people to occupy the same spot at the same
> time, then I think it is time to drop this thread.
>
> If you are simply unwilling to grasp the fact, then ditto.

I think you're taking an over-literal approach to the question of shared use of land. While it is true that no two physical objects can occupy the exact same spot of physical space at the exact same time, it is also true that land can be shared.

The copyright analogy to your "physical impossibility" argument seems to be the simultaneous reading of the same word in the same text by two different people -- which is, unlike the land analog, possible. However, I'm not convinced that's the relevant level of granularity we should be looking at, and it's clearly not what Mr. Henderson is talking about.

Why is your analogy the appropriate approach to take and not his?

Daniel J. Schaeffer
<daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> Received on Wed Aug 19 1998 - 13:19:58 GMT