[PEN-L:557] Re: Re: Re: Re: copyrights.

[Ellen Dannin]

>It also makes less sense, as several people have pointed out, if the
>copyright or patent prevents the dissemination of information to others
>that allows them to innovate.


Actually, the purpose of the copyright and patent laws is precisely the
opposite -- to get the information out to the public. The theory is that if
authors and inventors' works can be used without payment, then authors and
inventors will keep the information secret. The ownership of a copyright
remains with the author, even if the piece is published, unless there is
another arrangement. When I have an op-ed piece published or an article, I
retain copyright; the publisher gets only first publication rights - unless
a different arrangement is made - but I have never personally had any other.
Many reporters, for example, produce what are termed "works for hire" and
cede copyright to the employer as part of the employment arrangement.

Copyright protects - not the information in a writing - but the form in
which it exists. I can write the same ideas in different forms, and each
gets a copyright. (patents are different, but we are not discussing posting
patents to the web).

What happens when something is not copyrightable or patentable? Well, that's
where trade secrets law kicks in. The only way to get the protection of
trade secrets law is to keep information from the public and ensure it is
secret - just what copyright and patent law seeks to avoid.

Patent and copyright law are not monolithic in their impact. I make no money
from most things I publish, but that doesn't mean I don't want them
copywritten and don't want some control over how they are used.

If you got rid of these laws, how will authors get paid? A publishing
company can take a look at the manuscript and publish it with no
compensation to the author.

Ellen Dannin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]