Re: INFO/NYT: DISCUSS: The Future of the Internet

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999, Mike Oliver <mikeoliver[_at_]home.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Mike Oliver <mikeoliver[_at_]home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hmmm... seems to me it is not so simple as this. Copyright law
> > seriously burdens the communication of ideas. Thus, I would think
> > it is not a matter of "if only one" but rather whether a matter of
> > whether copyright promotes more communication of ideas than it
> > suppresses.
> >
> > Viewed that way, one can immediately see why the Internet threatens
> > copyright. By lowering the cost of communication it erodes the
> > raison d'etre of copyright. One needs much less incentive to post
> > these emails than one would need to set them in type.
>
> I have often wondered whether there will be a day of the last 'original'
> creation. The day we all agree that every new work is based upon at
> least a part of the existing capital of prior expression. I just see
> it as diminishing body of truly new, original work. If copyright law
> promotes someone to *think* and to *create* instead of just to copy,
> extend or amplify, then my balance always tips in favor of original
> expression. There is an "if" in there. When there comes a point that
> copyright law fails to promote original expression, it has failed, and
> some new law needs to be enacted.
>
> Original expression does not in my view derive from the burden
> associated with fixing the expression in some tangible medium. I
> might be misunderstanding you, but if anything, the internet promotes
> original expression by making it easier to distribute the content to
> more people, faster. That the same technology also permits promiscuous
> copying is not a reason to condemn it. Its a reason to condemn those
> who misuse it.
>
> Your comment uses the word "ideas." And I conclude from your comment
> that copyright law somehow is suppose to promote the communication of
> ideas. This is one of the problems I see with what some people view
> as the purpose of copyright law. Copyright law neither protects the
> ideas themselves, nor the un-original expression of such ideas. And
> copyright law is not designed to promote communication; or for that
> matter, to suppress it. I would also point out that copyright law
> is not necessarily the vehicle by which *creativity* is promoted.
> Copyright law is intended to protect for limited times, original
> works of authorship.
>
> So, the conclusion I understand you to draw -- that copyright law is
> bad if it suppresses more communication of ideas than it promotes --
> is, in my view, irrelevant because copyright law does not protect
> ideas. And, even if you change this wording to seek a balance between
> the amount of original expression copyright law promotes versus the
> amount of original expression it suppresses, I would weight the
> promotion end much higher than the suppression end. I view it like
> the 4th Amendment -- that we would rather make far more mistakes
> freeing guilty criminals than jailing even one innocent.
>
> I'd rather suppress far more expression than risk the chance that the
> one rare genius of truly original creation be lost. That's just me.

I don't think the absence of copyright law ever prevented Socrates from influencing Plato, who in turn influenced Aristotle.

I don't think any law of man can ultimately end divine inspiration, creativity. Creativity is what makes us human. We all have it. It's not going any place, regardless of what laws we enact. The means for expressing it may change, but the influence will always be there.

I don't think any idea is completely original. Ideas are based upon our knowledge of the world. This knowledge is based in everyday experience. We learn from this experience. I think from this you'll always have those who will find the way to express their creative expressions. This is why the ideas themselves can't be copyrighted. But how they are portrayed, expressed, etc. can be.

Just my 2-cents.

Craig

Craig Hayward
<chayward[_at_]hbmaynard.com> Received on Thu Aug 19 1999 - 13:46:03 GMT