Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

From: Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:01:56 -0800 (PST)

Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> [...] But what I fear is that having equated copyright with property
> in the minds of the public, these people will then turn around and say
> "wait a minute, copyright is property, but copyright owners don't have
> all of the rights that real property owners do. Let's give them some
> more, in the interest of equity." This would be a bad idea.

OTOH, this might work -against- copyright maximalists. If we treat intellectual works more like property, we should also start placing more of the -responsibilities- commonly attached to property rights.

• You usually have to pay taxes to retain land ownership; oughtn't you pay an annual fee to retain your copyright?
• If you leave your car, your wallet, etc. abandoned in a public place for several years, it typically ceases to be your property. Should a published but out-of-print work be considered "abandoned" after x years and become public-domain?

(The last idea might actually have a faint chance of getting passed  into US law, if enough people lobbied for it; since it wouldn't be  much of an economic threat to Disney et al.)

Lance Purple
<lpurple[_at_]netcom.com>

..----------------------------.

| lpurple at netcom dot com |

'----------------------------'

Received on Tue Nov 03 1998 - 15:02:26 GMT