Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 08, September 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On 2 Sep 1998, Michael Scarpitti <MScarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > As has been pointed out by me and others, IP differs from real
> > property in several significant ways. For Mr Henderson to continue
> > to treat them the same, and then to base arguments on that premiss,
> > is intellectually dishonest.
>
> Don't be bitter just because I don't buy the "public" theory. The
> differences you emphasize are not necessarily related to ownership.
> I believe that making an unauthorized copy is neither a "God-given"
> right nor a law of nature.

But who is to say what is an "unauthorized copy". Do you mean "infringing copy" or one not "authorized" by the publisher? The laws have established "fair use", authorizing copies within certain limits.

> > In the first place, IP cannot really be "owned", only the
> > reproduction rights can be owned. It's only real value lies
> > precisely in its availability to others, for a price.
>
> A trade secret is certainly owned and valued for its exclusivity
> and unavailability to others. I believe Xerox Corporation keeps
> its toner forumla a secret.
>
> So is a trademark, like "Xerox" for example. Please don't use it
> as a verb, beg the Xerox Corp. lawyers.
>
> A limited edition of a book or work of art also takes value from
> scarcity. There is only one Mona Lisa, even though the image is
> considered in public domain. The counterfeiting of Einstein's bust
> of Churchill was an international scandal.

A "trade secret" is not something copyrighted; on the contrary, copyrighted materials are widely available, and not scarce at all. Therefore this argument is void. A "limited edition" is valuable not because it is copyrighted, but because of certain features of the printing itself. Many books in the public domain (anybody heard of the Gutenberg Bible?) carry high prices because of rarity, not copyright. The "Mona Lisa" example vitiates your own argument. Reproductions of "Mona Lisa" can be had quite cheaply, and may be copyrighted.

> > On the other hand, Merriam-Webster can sell thousands of the Third
> > New International dictionary without diminishing their ownership of
> > the work. And so on.
>
> Counterfeit copies of the dictionary certainly diminish the owners'
> value. The U.S. government has made major efforts to eliminate pirate
>
> editions of such popular works -- including music and software
> -- throughout the world.

Who said anything about counterfeit? Read my statement again.

> > Secondly, copies of IP may be sold over and over again to different
> > parties. I cannot sell you my Leica M-3 but once, after which you
> > have it and I don't.
>
> You don't have the right to make copies of the Leica. Thousands
> have been made, surely, and sold over and over again to different
> parties.

I cannot "make" my own parts and put "Leica" on it, but I can get parts from Leica and assemble them myself. I stated this quite clearly in my original message. Read my statement. Again.

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Wed Sep 09 1998 - 14:52:06 GMT