Re: Copyrights as Property (Was: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress)

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Benedict A. Monachino <bam[_at_]p-a.com> wrote:
>
> I made my posting with the impression that Mr. Phillips argued that
> the "copy" (his "copyrighted WORK") is not personal property. However,
> assuming that Mr. Phillips meant to say that the copyright owner does
> not own all the rights in a work ("copy") because (a) the public also
> owns rights in the work ("copy") as described above

Based upon the parentheticals you use above, I'm inferring that you're conflating the work and the copy, which are two distinct things, e.g., following "copy" with "(his 'copyrighted WORK')" and "work" with "('copy')." In fact, they're very distinct things.

As I see it, there are three diferent entities that need to be considered:

1. the work, a metaphysical thing that is not property, or, to the extent it can be characterized as property, is public property;
2. the copyright in the work, a legislatively created bundle of specific rights concerning reproduction, etc., of the work, and that is the property of the author and/or his assigns;
3. the copy, the only physical thing in the analysis, which is the material object from which the work is perceived, and which is the property of the individual who acquires title to the physical object lawfully produced under the ordinary rules for transfer of a chattel.

Any analysis that confuses the copy with the copyright; the copyright with the work; or the copy with the work, is doomed to add more confusion than clarity.

--
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998