IP: Re: Life, Liberty & Copyright

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:56:13 -0500
To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
From: "David W. Maher" <dwmaher@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: IP: Life, Liberty & Copyright

Dave:
        I can never resist the challenge to get into a good copyright brawl:

        The US Constitution (Art.1,Sec.8,Cl.8) says: The Congress shall have
power...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. (EMPHASIS ADDED)

        Further, our Congress, in its wisdom, added Sec 106A to the copyright
statute in 1990: "Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity"

        It is certainly true that our Constitution picks up the English tradition
of copyright (which started out as a government license to publish), but
the First Amendment was intended to protect freedom of expression. There is
 a strong tradition in American copyright law that copyright vests in an
employer for hire, whether the employer is a natural person - the usual
case in the 18th Cent. - or a corporation. The Sec.106A  "moral rights" or
"droit d'auteur" concept finally made it into our statute in 1990 as a
recognition that it was needed to balance the ownership rights of
employers. The concept had, however, been recognized by US case law in a
few instances even before 1990.

        I am not convinced that the American Revolution needs completing, at least
in the copyright area.
                        David Maher
At 04:38 AM 10/6/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>From: "Harry Hillman Chartrand" <h-chartrand@home.com>
>
>Subject: Life, Liberty & Copyright
>
>
>First, I wish to commend Atlantic Monthly for this outstanding series.  The
>main article by Charles C. Mann: "Who Will Own Your Next Good
>>Idea?" <http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/copy.htm> and the clashing
>viewpoints of the Roundtable participants does much to illuminate the dark
>recesses of a critically important issue for the future of our 'post-modern
>society'.
.....