Re: Copyright

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

Patricia M Godfrey wrote [inter alia]:

> There are two separate questions here: 1) What do the present copyright
> laws permit? 2) Are these laws just and equitable? As to 1, the old law
> permitted libraries and scholars to make a limited number of copies of
> out-of-print or otherwise unobtainable works that were not yet in the
> public domain, simply to keep a copy in existence and to satisfy the
> reasonable needs of scholarship. I believe that the Millennium Copyright
> Act, as first introduced, abridged that right somewhat, and the libraries
> screamed Foul! Whether their objections were accommodated in the final
> version, I do not know. It would be helpful to find out.

Noted.

>
> 2) The fairness of the current copyright laws in indeed under serious
> discussion in various fora. In particular as it applies to computer code,
> but even as it applies to creative works, Richard Stallman and his
> followers have been arguing for some time that current copyright law does
> not serve the purposes intended by the framers of the Constitution, or
> the public good. (Stallman will be speaking in New York City next
> Wednesday evening, under the auspices of the New York Computer Club
> .)

Fiine. Then Mr. Stallman should use his constitutional right (and it sounds as
if he is doing precisely that) to have the law changed.


>
>     Looking at the issue from a historical perspective, I must point out
> that copyright was unheard of in the ancient and medieval periods. It
> came in with the printing press and, in England at least, the
> establishment of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Statute of 8 Anne 1714.


> So we're not talking
> about unalterable natural law, or even customary law "from the time
> whence the memory of man runneth not."

Err no, but we are talking about nearly 300 years of precedent. And note that
the Statue of 8 Anne protected works for seven, count 'em seven, years. Each
time the law has been rewritten the length of copyright has increased.

As for what is art and what is commerce, well who's to say? You will not have
failed to notice that the Museum of Modern Art has within its collection
automobiles. And Art Deco vacuum cleaners have been exhibited at museums too.
And when did photography cross the line?

Indeed XyQuest's 3+ manual is, in some sense, a work of art. It is the model of
what a software manual should be, and what it might be again, if anyone cared
enough.

It is far better to link copyright to intellectual property than to fuss about
what's art and what's not.

--
Leslie Bialler, Columbia University Press
lb136@xxxxxxxx
61 W. 62 St, NYC 10023
212-459-0600 X7109 (phone) 212-459-3677 (fax)
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup