Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On 11/3/98, Tim Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Lemley (whose posts I always enjoy reading, even when I don't
> agree) wrote:
> >
> > It's a bit facile to say [that] copyrights "are" property
> > already.
>
> I haven't yet studied Chavez v. Arte Publico. But I have always
> understood it to be fairly settled law that a copyright (as distinct
> from the copyrighted WORK) was for many legal purposes treated as if
> it were a piece of personal property. The Supreme Court did say,
> in Dowling, that it was "no ordinary chattel", so my terse "they
> [copyrights] are [property]", to be more exact, should have read "they
> are, with qualifications." But the current debate is not over whether
> copyrights are property, but over whether the copyrighted WORKS, once
> they have been communicated to the public, are -- or should be --
> considered to be the author's private property, and if so, what
> implications that identifcation would have for the term of copyright.
> I continue to hold that anyone who starts an analysis of copyright
> law with the "copyright is (or should be) to work exactly as private
> fee-simple land-title is to land" notion will create an expansion
> which converges to an incorrect result. The best -- or least bad --
> analogic language with which to begin analysis of copyright law's
> treatment, both as it is and as it should be, of the public's
> relationship to a work of authorship, is the language of public
> goods and public grant of monopoly. For the public's relationship
> to the author, the language of exchange provides the most useful,
> or least misleading, analogies. Analogies likening works of
> authorship to private real property, or improvements on private
> property, are less accurate, at least as starting points. Analogies
> likening copyrighted works to private chattels are even worse. Hence
> the "ghoti" author's statement of 9 October 1998 that the copyright
> extension "is a victory for and a boon to American writers and artists,
> and other createive Americans, who should have learned in the sandbox
> that you may not use what isn't yours without asking" is far off the
> mark. If we are to use such an analogy as Ms. Stoller's at all,
> copyright represents a situation in which Jimmy's and Johnny's parents
> agree that, for a time, only Johnny will have a yellow Tonka bulldozer.
> Copyright infringement would be analogous to a situation in which
> Jimmy's parents buy Jimmy a yellow Tonka bulldozer in violation of
> the agreement. Copyright expiration represents the expiration of
> the agreed term. The question remains: should such an agreement be
> made at all, and if so for how long? It simply does not follow, as
> Ms. Stoller would have it, that longer terms are better.

Has anyone compared copyright to the concept a "life estate" interest in real property--except of course the "life" has been extended to "life + Xyrs"? The grantor is the public, the life tenant is the copyright holder, the remainder interest reverts back to the public or to designated heirs. The bundle of rights (possession, enjoyment, control within the law) seem to be very similar, including the right to inheritance in some cases. Unfortunately, as a metaphor this concept is not very useful because many people don't seem to understand life estates very well!

CBC Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS
Authors & Editors
2025 NW Monroe Avenue
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-757-0713 (office phone or fax)
541-757-7620 (home)
cbccin[_at_]proaxis.com
Unpublished work Copyright 1998 Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS. Permission granted to reproduce my email messages as long as proper attribution is attached. Received on Wed Nov 04 1998 - 18:58:25 GMT