Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> On 11/18/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with obtaining permission? Many movies today are
> > derived, with permission, from books, plays, and other movies. It
> > is really a path favored by industry professionals.
>
> If the second artist (author, director, etc.) is required to obtain
> permission, then his or her artistic vision may be compromised by the
> constraints placed upon use of the work by the copyright owner. With
> public domain works, the second artist is free to use the work in any
> manner that he or she sees fit. This is much more in keeping with our
> free speech tradition. Copyright is necessary to ensure that new works
> are created; but the public domain is necessary to ensure that artists
> have a store of prior works upon which to draw in their creative
> endeavors.

There is no shortage of new work being produced under present constraints. Most publishers I know report rejection rates of unsolicited materials over 90%

What's the problem?

> Although the number of so-called "user" groups may outnumber the
> number of publishers, the dollars contributed by the copyright
> industry (including the movie and music industries) to Congress
> far outnumber the dollars contributed by "user" groups. In
> addition, I disagree that libraries and archives adequately
> represent the interest of the genral public. Their interests
> occasionally overlap, but they are not synonymous.

I believe the Authors Guild and other groups of creators / users tend to come down on the side of protection.

The academic user groups I know represent administrators and copiers, not creators, I believe. They urge deregulation that would lift responsibility for contributory infringement by librarians. They urge weakening of authors' rights so universities can tell authors that it is up to them to maintain a web site if they want their work to be read. They want "relief" from the cost of keeping their libraries abreast of research.

I can provide references of recent articles on these positions.

The example at a "user" at Texaco building a private library of articles he might read one day reflects a general solution to the decimation of library collections. The problem is, to these researchers, "if I don't copy it now I may never see it again and I won't remember the cite." The problem is caused by administrators cutting library spending.

Decent library collections and more extensive reviews would go far to resolve this in the interests of all.

> Although public library collections may have been "decimated," I am
> not yet convinced it is due to photocopying (the property tax
> revolution is a more likely cause, in my opinion), and I also am not
> yet convinced that it is true for academic institutions. The library
> here, for example, continues to grow in size. There is simply no way
> of knowing how fast it would have grown if photocopying had never
> been invented.

I had not heard of the property tax revolution. I thought that libraries were exempt from property taxes.

Universities report surplus revenue 5 to 20 times what they spend on their libraries (including salaries). They would rather invest in stocks and real estate than in knowledge.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Nov 24 1998 - 22:30:27 GMT