On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Mike Bradley <mike[_at_]sphinx.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
But this is contrary to my basic understanding of IP, and I get grouchy when I have to update a basic understanding :)
What I put out into the world isn't the work. They are copies of the work. The work is still here in my head. Even a painting is a work in the painter's head, of which s/he makes only one copy (to confuse things, the one copy is called an original!).
> 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.
I would say that the work is public property only in a metaphorical sense, as in "Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms belongs to the world."
> > > 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).
"Destroyed" works for me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:33 GMT