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

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna[_at_]gate.net> wrote:
>
> I cannot agree that a work itself is necessarily "public property."

I can't either. Let me repeat what I said: "the work [is] a metaphysical thing that is not property, or, to the extent it can be characterized as property, is public property."

Let me be clear about this: I don't think the work itself is property. However, if you can somehow come up with an argument that the work is property, it's freely usable by anyone _except_ as restricted by the copyright, which is the property of the author.

Therefore, if you come up with an argument that the work (as opposed to the copyright in the work, or a copy of the work) is property, it must be public property. But I personally don't think the work itself, is property, any more than an idea is.

> And how is it useful or meaningful to assert that what is left of the
> work, when you distinguish away the copyright in that work, is a "public
> property." Isn't that true of EVERY form of property once you sever away
> the body of property law protecting it?

Yup. That's kind of my point.

--
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