On 9/11/98, Moritz.ROETTINGER <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
>
> There might be a misunderstanding. When Congress, in accordance
> with the US Constitution, adopted the Copyright Act, it set out the
> scope and rules for copyright protection in general but did not
> grant any license to the author. An author automatically becomes
> the owner of copyright for his works in the moment of the creation
> of the work without any additional procedure or application. Isn't
> this what the Copyright Act says?
Yes -- which means that the public has granted ownership to the author as of the time of creation.
Can the public also take that ownership away? Yes -- it doesn't happen very often, but certainly occurred in the case of German IP owners during WWI and WWII.
> I never said that an author is obliged to exercise his rights
> conferred to him under the Copyright Act and other relevant
> legislation. But what does that mean? The author is, of course,
> not obliged to grant licenses or assign the copyright to anybody,
I'm afraid that's not true, either. There are unquestionably compulsory licenses as part of the copyright grant in certain works.
> See above. "The public" through Congress laid down the legal
> rules for copyright protection, but did not grant a specific right
> personally to a specific author. "The public" once decided that
> copyright protection exists from a certain point in time for a
> certain period and with the content they laid down in the laws.
Yes, and the public can just as easily decide to repeal those laws, or to modify them to include various obligations. Contrary to your earlier assertion, the public definitely has something to say about how the right is disposed of.
> With regard to an obligation for "the"public" or more specifically
> for Congress, I wonder whether the US Constitution does not provide
> the protection of property (including intellectual property)?
It does not, except in the sense of "protection" like compensation for takings. And the copyright clause is fairly unique in its potential to *create* a species of property.
> If so, is this general property right (protected by the Constitution)
> not part of the human rights? If there is a constitutional protection of
> property (and of intellectual property), Congress is obliged to enact
> the necessary legislation to effectively protect property. Thus, "the
> public" respectively Congress was obliged to do so.
First, I don't believe that the "protection" you are positing exists in the constitution. Second, I'm afraid that you entirely misunderstand the nature of the U.S. constitution -- the federal government is one of ennumerated powers. It has no inherent authority; only that ceded to it by the people and by the states. Third, even if there were some principle of property protection, youre speculation begs the question of property *creation* i.e., there is nothing to protect unless the bundle of rights is brought into existence in the first place -- which makes it sound, once again, as if you are assuming natural rights.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT