6 Sep
2002
6 Sep
'02
3:59 p.m.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:27:39 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote:
* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
Copyright has existed for roughly 300 years[1]. However, the
construction of copyright as a form of property is a relatively recent
development. The original copyright term in the U.S. was a mere 14
years[2], and copyrights were adjudicated under tort law, not property
law. As framed in law and interpreted by U.S courts, the purpose of
copyright is foremost the public good (hence the "fair use" doctrine);
the act of 'publishing' is, as the etymology of the word suggests, a
contribution by the author to the public domain, in return for which
he or she is given exclusive right to profit from that work for a
limited prior time.
However, since 1960 the term of copyright has been extended 11 times,
so that no copyrighted work published before 1923 has entered the
public domain (nor will it until 2018, save for future extensions of
the term). The depletion of the public domain is real.
In fact, the concept of "intellectual
property" is a fairly recent
perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
public domain. When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
wealth, and society as a whole loses.
I think this is kind of unfair in many cases. Firstly copyright has
lasted for a fairly long time for, well, a fairly long time. It's not
some sinister new development which is keeping ultrix in copyright. Secondly, it's all very well to say that old and
valueless bits of
software should be freed, but if you are the organisation which has
the copyright on these things it's really less trivial than you might
think to just give them away. For a start, there's (almost by
definition) no money in it, so any kind of work needed is costing
money. Secondly there may be just plain trade-secret stuff in there,
what do you do about that? There may be all sorts of other awful
things that you don't want to let the world see.
This is all a totally unrelated issue however. Copyright refers
necessarily only to published materials, and published materials
cannot (by definition) be trade secrets. Furthermore, "public domain"
refers merely to legal status, not to any obligation to make physical
materials available. The presumption is that if a work is published,
then copies already exist in the hands of the public, and they may now
be freely redistributed.
--Mirian
[1] The Statute of Anne (1710, in England) is considered to be the
precursor to U.S. copyright law.
[2] It could however be renewed for a single further period of 14
years, provided the initial author was still alive.