Re: Abandoning property (Was: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress)

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
> >
> > Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > How do you propose for scholars or researchers (or just the
> > > interested members of the public) to acquire a copy of a program
> > > which is still copyrighted, but hasn't been sold for 50 years?
> > > Or do you think that history older than that should be erased
> > > forever, in order to protect the publisher's monopoly on works
> > > they aren't even willing to publish?!
> >
> > I'm not quite sure whether I got your point. If a reseracher wants
> > to acquire a 50 year old computer program he may do so. He just has
> > to pay for it.
>
> How can they pay for it if the product is no longer being sold?
> You said yourself that most 20-year old software is "worthless",
> meaning that there is no incentive for the publisher to sell it
> anymore.

Well, if somebody wants to buy the programme, then it apparently still has a certain "value".

> If you demand that, nevertheless, nobody else should be allowed
> to make any more copies until 90 years has elapsed, then these
> works will almost certainly be lost for all eternity, through
> the decay of the magnetic media they are stored upon.

Well, it's a consequence of copyright protection of software. In the 1980s, when the discussion on copyright protection for software was at its peak, I argued against copyright and in favour of a sui generis protection. But now we have copyright for software and we have to accept it (or argue in favour of changing the way how software is protected). But we should not put copyright principles into questions just because we don't like the consequences for a specific category of works. This exapmle cleary shows once more that copyright is not the adequate way to protect software, but an adequate way to protect other works.

> > Your second question is quite polemic. Anyway, it is not always
> > the publisher who has the copyright, very often it's the author.
>
> I am sorry you find it "polemic" to point out the inevitable bad
> results of granting hundred-year monopolies without compelling
> some minimum level of service in return. I ask you to consider
> a hypothetical question:
>
> Would you be pleased if the local electrical utility had an
> exclusive 99-year right to sell power to your city, but it
> chose not to do so, and forbid you even to set up your own
> generator in the basement? They argue that they can make
> more profit by selling the electricity elsewhere, and that
> it would hurt their bargaining position if you were free
> to generate your own power. Moreover, you can still use
> candles and batteries as alternatives.
>
> If the answer is "no", why do you not feel the same way about
> previously-published but long-out-of-print materials? This is
> not meant as an ad-hominem attack, but an honest question of
> your world-view.

Of course, my answer to your question is "no". But you compare different things which can't really be compared: The fruit of a human brain who has no obligation to create a work on one side and the electricity supplier which has a public obligation as countervalue for his monopoly.

Moritz Roettinger
<moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> Received on Fri Nov 13 1998 - 15:30:38 GMT