On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 09:03 PM, John Haumann wrote: > > On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 07:17 PM, Donald Keenan wrote: > >> This is a good example of why copyright law has to be reformed to >> conform with the original intent to benefit the public good over the >> private interests of the copyright holder(s). > > I wonder if you could elaborate here. What does the award of a > copyright (i.e., recognition of an original work) have to do with the > public good? Particularly when we're talking about music or literature? > > > List: Apologies in advance for continuing this thread and I'll drop it here. I'll indulge myself in memory of the Apple "1984" television ad from Super Bowls past.
John: I work in a University Library (a somewhat elitist environment admittedly) and we already see the demise of open access: vendor's digital license agreements dictate access to the digital content we "license" and provide to users...this is no longer an issue of public or local policy. This will quite possibly be ruinous for public libraries. In my field, we are unfortunately very isolated in supporting free speech and open access. The continual extension of copyright terms and diminishing of open access is not good for an open, creative culture. It is a hallmark of a potentially despotic one. I see on a daily basis how people cower over copyright issues and the fear that surrounds referencing and reproducing intellectual content. To your question: Bill Moyers' program "Now" had a very interesting segment which discussed the efforts of content holders and content producers to prevent mass communication culture from replenishing and entering the public domain. (1/17/03 transcripts at <http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript203_full.html>) Moyers quoted Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion. Below is the exact quote from the transcript: MOYERS: Congress got a reminder of the public interest this week from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The court, by a vote of 7-2, upheld the authority of Congress to extend the term of copyright, even as that term gets far longer than the framers ever imagined. Justice Breyer dissented. And in his dissent, he quoted previous decisions about the copyright clause. His argument says copyright: "exists not to provie a special private benefit...but to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good... Copyright was not designed primarily to benefit the author of any particular class of citizens, however worthy... Rather, uner the Constitution, copyright was designed primarily for the benefit of the public; for the benefit of the great body of people." That sentiment and those words, "the great body of people," are heard so seldom in Washington these days. Think Different :) -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
