Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 9/9/98, Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
>
> 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.

Mr. Roettinger; No annoyances here -- thanks for speaking up. As a student of copyright/art/multimedia, I've found myself deleting a lot of discussion before it's even read due to this verbosity/oddness. Plus, re. the behavior standards of academia, how about just being ethical, thoughtful & not filibustering unless one has something pertinent to add to a specific issue ... instead of hypothetical meanderings ... ?

Madeleine Fix
<fix.3[_at_]osu.edu> Received on Thu Sep 10 1998 - 17:23:00 GMT