Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 James Rogers <jetan[_at_]ionet.net> wrote:
>
> On 8/28/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is difficult enough for new talent to achieve recognition. When a
> > rare work is a major commercial success, it is discouraging to see it
> > turned out to the public domain while still in print in an authorized
> > edition.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are here arguing for a perpetual
> copyright term for books whcih are succesful enough to never lapse from
> print. It is difficult for me to see such extended protection is going
> to prove either "discouraging" or "encouraging" for, say, Charles
> Dickens or F. Scott Fitzgerald. Difficult to reconcile with the "for
> limited times" provision of the Constitutional clause, to boot.
>
> Pertinent to this particular thread, this argument sounds rather
> like the flip side of the proposal by Mr. Scarpetti... in both cases
> the term of protection depends on the extent to which the market has
> succeeded in keeping the book in print.

Yes. I have not heard any argument to convince me that copyright should be subject to an arbitrary term any more than real estate or personal property. The replacement of term by perpetual ownership would increase the value of copyrighted property. Greater security would attract creative energy and financial resources that now go elsewhere.

Albert Henderson, <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Sep 01 1998 - 17:48:35 GMT