!@!Re: [Upd-discuss] a longer term strategy for promoting the public domain?

[David Basskin]

Michael Hart wrote:

>
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Marc Lavallée wrote:
>
>> Le 24 Août 2004 20:51, David Basskin a écrit :
>>
>>> We take a great deal of care to monitor the PD status of musical works,
>>> and regularly advise those seeking licenses for a PD work that they
>>> don't need to do so.
>>
>>
>> Hi Mr. Basskin.
>>
>> As a copyright worker, what do you really think of the public domain? 
>> Is it
>> basically a cemetery of planned financial obsolescence?  We all 
>> understand
>> why creators should be paid, but at the same time many on this list 
>> think a
>> robust PD is far more important and valuable than a stronger copyright
>> system.
>
>
> Is no one willing to consider them as equal?
>
>
>> Most of what we learn comes from PD knowledge. The skeleton of human 
>> culture
>> is made out of PD knowledge. What's not in the PD is only available 
>> to those
>> who can pay. Copyright is therefore most often used as a means of 
>> exclusion,
>> and the reason invoked is "because creators must be paid". Right...
>
>
> This I have to agree on. . . .
>
> Example:  While the Wright Brothers' patents on their airplane of 1903
> expired at the start of The Great Depression, their blueprints under
> the current US copyright law would not have expired until 1998. . . .
>
> Of what possible value is that kind of conservatism to anyone. . .???
>
>> You might argue that without copyright there would be no creation at 
>> all.
>> therefore no public domain. I don't believe we'd be stupid enough to 
>> stop
>> creating and sharing...
>
>
> Our kind of copyright is still relatively new. . .will only be 300 
> years old
> 6-7 years from now. . .virtually all the great literature precedes it. 
> . .
> but it's obvious that THEY would prefer to be able to copyright 
> Shakespeare,
> The Bible, The Koran, etc., even today. . .even though these were all 
> done
> over a hundred or thousand years earlier.
>
> The real point is that the current copyright powers want EVERYTHING  
> to be
> copyrighted. . .everything PAID for. . .everything censorable. . . .
>
> Everything has to have their stamp of approval, just like ye olde
> Stationers' Company. . . .
>
> {I'm wondering if I've said too much or too little. . .]
>
> Michael

What a red herring. Can you show me any statement by any of the 
"copyright powers" that endorses the extension of copyright to the works 
of Shakespeare, or to the Bible or the Qu'ran? Or a statement arguing 
that everything should be copyrighted, and that there should be no 
public domain?

It's fun to talk about vast, all-encompassing international 
conspiracies. Likewise, hyperbolae in the service of rhetoric is not 
without its satisfactions. But don't expect remarks like these to be 
taken seriously.

David Basskin