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?

Well, the works we're concerned with are not the ones that are only in your head. They're the ones that you have put out into the world.

The work itself (as contrasted with your copyright in the work) is not your property. I don't see it as property at all, but to the extent that anyone can do anything with it -- except as bounded by the copyright -- if you want to consider it as property at all, it's 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;
>
> Isn't this what becomes public property after the term expires? Or
> rather, the restriction on copying that is defined by copyright no
> longer applies.

I prefer to think of it that the property is destroyed upon expiration of the copyright. I don't think it's helpful to refer to a property in which no one can assert any property rights (which is why I hesitate to consider the work itself to be peoprty at all).

--
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