Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna[_at_]gate.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Joseph P. Riolo" <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Obviously, such publishers rarely paid royalties to authors for
> > > public domain works. It seems to me a pity that the heirs of
> > > Shakespeare, Hawthorne, Melville, etc. and modern writers have
> > > been treated less respect than homesteaders whose property rights
> > > were were better protected even from earliest times.
> >
> > Once again, I think it is very improper of you not to recognize
> > the importance of the freedom to copy. These writers could not
> > exist if they were not allowed to copy anything from anyone.
> > In fact, these old writers had more freedom to copy than in our
> > times. We are blessed to read their works because people in
> > the past used the freedom to copy, as embodied in the public
> > domain, and thus, were able to propagate the old works.
>
> Invoking the phrase 'freedom to copy,' of course, suggests that
> somehow this freedom, rather than an incident of the uncovered
> portions of the Copyright Act, somehow arises to the level of a
> right.

I believe that you are not on this list (CNI-COPYRIGHT) long enough to be familiar with Albert Henderson's position, which for some is seen as high protectionist. Two of some points that illustrate his position is 1) the fair use should be eliminated and 2) Xerox copiers are "evil" (he did not say the word "evil" but one can get such impression from his posts).

When I have a book whose work has entered the public domain (which therefore is not covered by the copyright law), on what basis can or cannot I copy the book? Here you have two different sides to the question: On one hand, there are people who believe that you cannot copy the public domain work without permission regardless of the expiration of copyright in the work. In other words, all works have perpetual copyright. They use the concept of natural right to justify the perpetual copyright.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are people who believe that you can copy the public domain work. What reasons do they have to justify the copying? Why do I believe that I can copy the public domain work? It is not because it is not covered by the copyright. It is because I have the freedom to copy.

The freedom to copy is not "an incident of the uncovered portions of the Copyright Act". The freedom to copy always exists, from the dawn of the world to the eternity. Copyright law was created to diminish or restrict the freedom to copy.

Whether the freedom to copy can be recognized as a right is up to a government. If the government does not recognize the freedom as a right, fine. If the government recognizes the freedom as a right, fine. Either way, the freedom to copy always exists regardless of what the governments say.

> There is no impropriety here. The fact that under certain cicumstances
> you may enter my property for various reasons does not mean that in a
> discussion of my property rights to exclude I must take account of
> your "freedom to move on my land."

This is not a good analogy. A work (the metaphysical thing) which is duplicable is not the same as the land (the concrete thing) which is not duplicable.

> And, quite frankly, modern impingement on the Riolo "freedoms to copy"
> certainly hasn't measurably diminished either the volume or quality of
> works of authorship or scholarship of all kinds in any sense that I
> can measure. I believe a strong argument can be made for the opposite
> position.

I agree with your statements only for bringing the works out to the public. After that, copyright harms most of them by not letting people to preserve and propagate the less known works.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> Received on Fri Oct 30 1998 - 23:54:20 GMT