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

On 4 Sep 1998, James Rogers <jetan[_at_]ionet.net> wrote:
>
> On 9/3/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Quaint answer. Is "advancing the useful arts and sciences" the
> > sole justification for copyright? My experience is that copyright
> > supports a much broader spectrum of activity.
>
> Not quaint at all. This is the constitutional standard and
> the touchstone ffor all analyses of U.S. copyright statute. In
> the U.S., "advancing the useful arts and sciences" is the sole
> justification for copyright which is asserted in the constitution.
> And for the life of me I can't imagine any other justification that
> one could offer for it other than some type of natural rights argument.

'scuse me. I was speaking plain English.

How useful is decorative art, poetry, music, dance, religious texts, pulp fiction, theatre, etc., etc.?

But they are surely subject to copyright.

Perhaps this is why the "exclusive right" of authors described by the Constitution was so neatly compromised by the 1976 law without an Amendment.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Sep 08 1998 - 22:57:08 GMT