From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott L. McGregor)
Subject: Copyright induces distribution not mere creation (was Hypocrisy ...)
Reply-To: mcgregor@netcom.com
Organization: Atherton Technology, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:59:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.194834.531@Princeton.EDU> bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU  
(Ameet A. Ravel) writes:
> IMHO, our society has the concept of a "copyright" because we believe
> that: 
> 
> (1) creative work is "possessed" by its creator, much as a person can
> possess a herd of cattle or a stand of trees; that
> 
> (2) the creator can sell the benefits of their work, much as the
> owner of a cow can sell milk from the cow (or the cow itself!); and
> that
> 
> (3) without a financial reward, people will stop creating to the
> detriment of the whole society.

I disagree with Mr. Ravel on two accounts. First, I think that 1) and 2) are  
not beliefs that lead to the concept of copyright, but rather that because we  
have enshrined copyright in law we have enabled possession and sales as in 1)  
and 2).

Second, I think that only a limited number of people believe 3 as Mr. Ravel has  
written it.  What I believe a good many more people believe (and which I  
believe has caused our society to create intellectual property law) is that

	3A) Without a financial reward, SPEEDY WIDESPREAD DISSEMINATION of 
	intellectual property will not occur.  

I think many people agree that the creative acts themselves may likely occur,  
that the individuals who make the creative acts will individually benefit to  
some limited degree from the use of their own creations, and even that some  
narrow dissemination among friends, family, neighbors, or colleagues will  
likely occur over time.  But it is less likely to spread quickly to all of  
society.

> Alternate views of creative work in general, and of software
> creations in particular, abound.  The entire GNU project is a
> standing example that (3) is not valid.  People create, think up
> ideas, work on seeing their ideas through, for lots of reasons, and
> the financial reward is only a small part of the picture.

Mr. Ravel is exactly correct here.  The GNU project illustrates that (3), as he  
has written it, is not valid.  The work was created anyway. The creators got  
some personal (nonmonetary) benefits.  They shared it with some colleagues.  At  
the same time though the GNU project also illustrates my revised point, 3A:
GNU products are used primarily by a limited set of society, primarily by  
university, research and large commercial systems connected through the  
Internet and Usenet.  The population of GNU project users is significantly  
smaller than the number of Lotus 1-2-3 users, even though text editing (e.g.  
GNU emacs) is a much more general population need than is spreadsheets.  
Copyrights may not be necessary to induce low-budget groups to create and  
disseminate their creations via uncertain and limited channels.  But they do  
seem to be helpful at inducing individuals such as Mitch Kapor to invest  
personal money and time to distribute and promote products via mass channels to  
a larger group of society.

Copyrights seek not to induce mere creation, but the COMMERCIALIZATION of those  
creations (which is why financial incentives are enshrined in copyright law).  
This is because COMMERCIALIZATION **IS* synonymous with the objectives of  
SPEEDY WIDESPREAD DISSEMINATION.

Scott McGregor
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing