On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Nick Zales <zales[_at_]execpc.com> wrote:
>
> When you get down to the nub, copyright law is about one thing and
> one thing only -- money.
'copyright law' is not about money. Recent congressional action might be about money. Overreaching by copyright holders might be about money. But a provision that the Founders thought important enough 200+ years ago to include in the Constitution is not about money.
Others on this list are looking more deeply into what the Copyright Clause meant to the Founders (and probably more importantly, what they intended to achieve by including it in such an important document). Protection afforded by 'copyright law', like protection afforded by most other laws, is a compromise between conflicting interests. It is an experiment every time Congress debates, and ultimately enacts, a new law implementing the Copyright Clause. If what you mean to say is that money is the primary motivation behind recent Congressional action, I would probably agree. If (and I fear this is what you mean to argue), it is your view that there should be no copyright law, I disagree.
Even if only one person engages in original expression because of the protection afforded by copyright law, that's enough for me to believe its worthwhile. That they might have the power to exact a fee for us to use or enjoy it is an expected by-product of our system of capitalism. If they abuse that power (price gouge etc.) there are enough options now that I'll just choose a different copyrighted work.
mike oliver
Bowie & Jensen, LLC
<mikeoliver[_at_]home.com>
Received on Tue Aug 17 1999 - 03:45:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:36 GMT