Mark D Lew wrote:
On Oct 23, 2007, at 7:24 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I know this post is going to be a little controversial, and I am by no
means an expert on copyright. Anyway, I'd like to point out that
copyright, originally, was actually there to protect the artist.
This is true in Europe, but not in America. The political philosophers
who founded America's legal system explicitly rejected that tradition,
along with many others they perceived as unjust privilege antithetical
to their ideal of individual liberty.
In America, copyright is re-founded on the notion of the public good.
This basis is clearly stated in the copyright clause of the U.S.
Constitution (article 1, section 8, paragraph 8), without which any
copyright restriction at all would be in violation of the First Amendment.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries"
Actually, no mention of the public good is made, merely "progress of
science and the useful arts." It makes no mention of who is to benefit
from that progress.
That's what comes from writing a document you think will be read and
interpreted only by people who will, of course, understand you and agree
with you. The framers of the U.S. Constitution did a wonderful and a
terrible thing at the same time when they wrote the constitution.
They may have discussed at great length in other writings, but in the
one document that counts the most they don't mention the "public good"
in relation to copyright at all. Of course they don't even mention
copyright or patent by name either. That is left to the legislation
which originally enacted copyright in the U.S., and we know that that
gets rewritten as quickly as you can say "Gee, Senator, would you like
to come to St. Moritz to discuss copyright legislation issues?"
But of course, the concept in the late 18th century and the reality in
the early 21st are two entirely different things.
Amen to that! In the 18th century, the notion of performing music which
was 20 years old or reading anything but the newest poetry or seeing
the latest plays was rare, so there wasn't much economic energy in older
works.
Nowadays, with all the performances of Beethoven's symphonies and Bach's
music and Corelli and Vivaldi and others, we know there is economic
potential in everything (practically) that has ever been created by humans.
That doesn't mean they should be protected by copyright, but it does put
creative works in a different light than merely encouraging people to
create more.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
