>"At any rate this discussion among ourselves is pointless because it engages
legalities regarding the various divisions between private property and public
domain that only legal scholars and specialized lawyers can answer."
No, William, I'm not asking us to interpret current copyright law, only to
question its principles.
>"I share your revulsion at Miller's position. Which, as far as I can
determine, is: "I'm entitled to anything of [aesthetic] value because I have
high aesthetic standards, and I want to see what is behind that door."
No, Michael, my point has been that civilization is enhanced by making
certain things more accessible, an argument that Cheerskep says was used in
Queen Anne's day to introduce copyrights, and which I'm now saying should be
re-considered in the age of the internet.
(And, I have not discussed entitlements at all, other, perhaps, than to
suggest that they be removed from certain owners (i.e. art museums) of
intellectual property)
Cheerskep also wrote that "To say posting a 500-page novel on the internet is
"publication and distribution" is to show you have no idea of what a publisher
does."
But, perhaps the kind of "publication and distribution" done on the internet
would suffice to accomplish the purposes of the Queen Anne Act (as presented
by Cheerskep) : ie. ""the cultivation of the arts" and the dissemination of
knowledge through non-fiction."
In it's first 20 years, the internet has already dramatically changed the
distribution of music and poetry -- and we'll see how devices like "Kindle"
will change the distribrution of fiction and non-fiction. Not only does the
internet deliver products - but it also promotes them -- or, even better than
that -- it can offer an unlimited wealth of information to help readers and
listeners decide what they want to read or hear.
I'm not concerned with accessibility to recorded music and literature because
it's already so widely and cheaply accessible -- how could it be any better ?
With Worldcat, a reader has free access to any book in any library in the
country -- and a variety of providers are making all recorded music just as
available as well.
But the visual arts are a different story because an owner can buy a statue
and put it in his basement where it can never be seen again.
If that owner is a private individual, that's not a big deal: within a few
decades, the heirs will go into that basement and everything will be
redistributed.
But if that owner is a public museum -- on public land -- supported by public
subsidies and exempted from taxation -- yes, that's a problem for me -
especially since art museums live much longer than individuals - and some may
survive as long as humanity itself.
Recently, a statue by Albin Polasek, one of the great names in Chicago
sculpture, just came out of the Art Institute's basement after an 80 year
residence in the dark. The museum staff finally decided that since they were
never going to display it, they might as well give it away. Good for them !
But what about the rest of the stuff down
there? And what about the rest of their collection -- and the rest of the
world that lives too far away to see it regularly ? If these objects are
important to our civilization, shouldn't they be made more accessible ? And
-- isn't that the primary mission of a public art museum ?
*
**************
Note: I have also questioned whether copyright is harmful for the production,
as well as the distribution, of works of the imagination, since it encourages
a creative person to service a marketplace rather than follow a Muse.
But this post is already too long.
____________________________________________________________
Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxSDIBk5OEzLa3yMorWltfF5W
QdLIJM0pRPKi3TwpKQH0ZonU1tIbu/
