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

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Mike Bradley <mike[_at_]sphinx.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/01/98, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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;
>
> Wait. No, that can't be right. If I write a novel or make a sculpture,
> it can't be public property. The essential work is in my head; how can
> it be public?

I have spent the last two days at a metadata workshop where there was a presentation by a representative of CISAC (and other music / recording arts communities) who is trying to solve a rights management problem, chiefly. As a result, we kinda have a proposal on the table that sounds a little like what Mike writes above. The theory goes that the "work" is an intellectual creation and "expressions" and/or "manifestations" of the work follow from that...

In the traditional copyright framework, I have real problems with this.

You can't copyright an idea. Beyond that, prove to me that something which lies entirely in your mind, Mike, or the mind of any creator, meets a requirement for fixation... No fixation, no copyright.

(On the other hand, it probably works fairly well as a data model for building metadata systems in rights management.)

-- 

   Craig A. Summerhill, Systems Coordinator and Program Officer
   Coalition for Networked Information
   21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C.   20036
   Internet: craig[_at_]cni.org   AT&Tnet (202) 296-5098