[LINK] Copyright in adapted works [was Digital copyright ...]

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:36:10PM +1000, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> A more mundane but to me more familiar example is when I sign over to a 
> publisher copyright in the production of a conference paper: they get to 
> own the form in which it is produced by them, but I retain copyright in 
> the original text.  It makes sense (to me at any rate) that my writing 
> represents one piece of intellectual property, that I own and can modify 
> and improve and publish again as I wish, while the actual printed work 
> is another piece of IP, imbued with the publisher's brand, and improved 
> by their editing, indexing and imprimatur, all of which adds some value.

but they're NOT property.  in either case.

the publisher has a short term(*) limited monopoly on producing copies
of their version of the printed work that you licensed them to make, and
you have a short term limited monopoly on producing any copy/version of
your work.

neither of these things are property.

calling them property is a sign of either 1. self-serving deceitfulness
or 2. a seriously mistaken understanding of what copyright is.



(*) unfortunately, no longer as short-term as it should be. the original
term of 20 or 25 years was about right. but now the duration has been
extended and extended due to lobbying by copyright industries until it's
absurd...and getting even more absurd every few years as they demand
even longer extensions.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>