About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. Crosbie Fitch on September 26, 2007 2:55 PM writes...
There isn't any difference except that one infringes a commercial monopoly over reproduction of copies, and one doesn't.
Are you suggesting that some people think copyright is some kind of authorial right against aesthetic dilution?
Copyright is prized by printers. It attaches to the work. It is only an illusion that it is a natural property of the author. All works belong to their authors of course, but the privilege of copyright has been carved out of the public's liberty by the state for the printer's commercial exploitation.
The privilege of copyright does not determine artistic legitimacy.
Permalink to Comment2. drwex on September 28, 2007 9:48 AM writes...
"Are you suggesting that some people think copyright is some kind of authorial right against aesthetic dilution?"
I think that's massively evident, in everything from Disney and Mattel stamping out all use of 'their' characters, to the rampant disregard of the parody defense for fair use to the random spasms of attack on various forms of slash fiction.
Are you saying you don't see the parallel here?
Permalink to Comment