Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On 30 Oct 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 10/29/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What did these heirs do to deserve compensation?
> >
> > That is a good question, applicable to real estate, cash in
> > the bank, horses, and nick nacks. The answer is just what
> > Elizabeth did to make her Queen of the British Empire and
> > all that goes with it. It is the old fashioned way for all
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > properties but copyright.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> As I pointed out in a previous post in this thread, that statement is
> simply false, as anyone who has ever dealt with trusts and estates
> knows.
>
> Julie Cohen of U. Pittsburgh has argued fairly persuasively that
> copyright is analogous to a contingent remainder, where the author
> holds the work in trust for the public, to whom it reverts after the
> term of protection.

Cohen's argument is based on inference and is, IMHO, mere speculation. Our Constitution speaks of "securing" author's rights ... nothing about holding anything in trust for the public.

Don't you agree that rights not specified in the Constitution probably don't matter?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Nov 02 1998 - 22:38:27 GMT