Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

Tim Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> In ordinary cases literary works are communicated to others. They are
> public property if they are "property" at all. The public, initially,
> has every say in the work. But it generously agrees to refrain, for a
> time, from excersing its full rights in the work, in order to give you
> a chance to make back your investment in the work.

No. Intellectual property in literary works belongs right from the beginning to the author - and only to him and originally to him. This property right is not a derivated right and is not granted to him by anybody. In the moment of the creation of the work he becomes the author and automatically the owner of copyright. It is certainly not the public who acts in whatever way "generously". The public has nothing to say.

Mr Phillips, I do not know where you come from and what you do. But what you write is contrary to all generally accepted copyright theories and doctrines, and it is contrary to US and European law and also to the constitution. Your argumentation reminds me of the very beginning of copyright in the early 19th century. Since then your approach is no longer consistent with law.

Sorry if this may sound rude, but this discussion is now turning around itself being fed with more than bizzare arguments which are in no way based on the law. As long as we talk about different copyright approaches, about protection terms, moral rights etc., this discussion is very interesting. But as soon as somebody tries to ignore one century of copyright law or does not want to accept the basic principles which are generally accepted, the discussion becomes more than just boring. May I suggest that some of the participants in our discussions first study the very basics of copyright law? Again apologies for all who feel insulted.

Moritz Roettinger

Dr Moritz Roettinger LL.M.
European Commission, Brussels
Universitites of Vienna and Saarbruecken moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be Received on Wed Sep 09 1998 - 20:19:48 GMT