Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 2 Sep 1998, Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why would perpetual copyright deprive interested parties any
> > more than ownership of real estate or personal property? I must
> > accept that I am denied "access" to your property forever unless
> > you are willing to loan, lease, or sell it.
>
> If what you claim to "own" ought to belong to all of us, then I
> am deprived. In ordinary circumstances I have no trouble with
> being denied access to YOUR property. But if works of art and
> literature are "property" at all (which they aren't, but let us
> admit it for the sake of argument) then they are public property.
> Perpetual copyright denies me access to what is as much mine
> as anyone else's.

Your argument jumped the track when you claimed "works ... are public property." That is not true. My creations are not public property. My creations are mine. I can destroy them without penalty. I can determine if, when, how many copies may be published and how many times they may be performed. I have no obligation to the public. The public has no say.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Sep 08 1998 - 13:30:49 GMT