On 12:46 PM 8/19/02, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>
>On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 12:05 PM, Charlie Summers wrote:
>
>>> Why do you believe those are implied by copyright law? I'm curious
>>> what
>>> your rationale is.
>>
>> http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q38
>>
>> http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q47
>>
>> http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q60
>
>Thanks.
>
>> As always, contact an attorney who speaializes in copyright law for
>> specific advice
>
>Oh, I have. A few times. If only it were this simple. (but since I'm
>not an attorney, I'll leave it at that).
BTW, I just found this, which might shed some light on the issue:
<http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/policy/policy.html>
<quote>
Copyright and marketing
There is some historical evidence that producers of intellectual property
may desire laws that are too restrictive for their own good. For example,
English publishers were opposed to the spread of libraries in the 1800s:
``...when circulating libraries were first opened, the booksellers
were much alarmed; and their rapid increase added to their fears, and led
them to think that the sale of books would be much diminished by such
libraries.'' (Knight (1854))
However, in the long run the spread of these libraries was very beneficial
to the publishing industry:
But experience has proved that the sale of books, so far from being
diminished by [the circulating libraries], has been greatly promoted; and
from these repositories many thousand of families have been cheaply
supplied with books, by which the taste of reading has become more general,
and thousand of books are purchased each year by such as have first
borrowed them at those libraries, and after reading, approving of them,
have become purchasers. (Knight (1854))
Two hundred years later, the same story was played out with Hollywood and
video rental stores. (Lardner (1987)) Hollywood tried a variety of
licensing schemes to prevent video rental stores from purchasing tapes and
then renting them to the general public. These schemes all failed, and the
failure ended up much to the benefit of the movie industry. Nowadays,
Hollywood makes 3 times much money from home video as from traditional
distribution. In 1996, consumers spent $9.2 billion on rental and $7.3
billion on purchase of videos. (Varian and Roehl (1996))
</quote>
So one could argue that the spread of mailing list mirrors and archives may
not diminish the original source's value.
jc
References:
|
|
