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

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> 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:

Yes. It is very important to distinguish between the work as such and the tangible copy (or the original) of the work. However, copyright has to be seen a little apart from this. Copyright just gives you certain rights. The distinction between work as such and tangible copy always applies even if the work is not copyrightable.

> > > 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.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The work which I created as author is my own property and only mine as long as it is protected by copyright. It is intellectual property which I exercise. (You could also say that I have property in the rights which I have right from the act of creation of the work - these rights being secured by copyright legislation.) Anyway, I absolutely don't see any room for 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).

I agree. When copyright expires the work as such is in the public domain. Thus there are no individual property rights.

I have a problem with the term "public propert" since property indicates that a certain person or entity has specific property rights which others don't. If everybody has a property right in the same object or intellectual creation, then such a concept does not make sense for two reasons: Firstly, property rights allow you to sue someone who infringes your property right; if everybody has the right, there can't be any infringement. Secondly, if you speak of "public property" I has to be assumed that the public as a whole has a right which can only be exercised commonly - but exercised against whom?

Moritz Roettinger
<moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> Received on Fri Nov 06 1998 - 13:34:32 GMT