[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Peter D. Junger wrote:

> Scott A Crosby writes:
> : -- Shamos
> :
> : THe copyright clause in the constitution says:
> :
> : ``To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> : limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> : respective writings and discoveries; ''
> :
> : [[What is the argument about ``copying'' being an ``exclusive right''?
> : This was elided out.]]
> The rights granted to the owners of a copyright are termed ``exclusive
> rights'' because they are the right to exclude others from reproducing
> or distributing, etc., the copyrighted work.

Thank you for explaining that legal nomenclature.

What I was remarking upon was that *what* exclusive rights are to be
granted is not enumerated within the copyright clause. Presumably, it
means some subset of the following list.

  1. Right to rent.
  2. Right to duplicate.
  3. Right to duplicate commercially.
  4. Right to perform publically.
  5. Right to control all forms of access.
  6. Right to appreciated value of the work. (if it appreciates) [1]
  7. Right to loan (libraries)
  8. Right to duplicate for archival purposes.
  9. Right to control copying. Where 'copying' means .... [2]
 10. Right to resale used works.
 11. Right to prevent the transport works for sale elsewhere.
 12. Right to duplicate and offer to the public
 13. ....

Shamos, after pointing out that copyright was in the constitution by
putting up that slide, never mentioned that 'copy' is not in that
copyright clause. There is nothing in the constitution that says that #9
is in the subset of exclusive rights. In my notes, I was calling him on


[1] That nutty law in california on how artists get 5% of the proceeds of
any sale over $1000, if the seller sells it for more than what they paid
for it.

[2] What is a copy? If I open up a book in a room with a mirror, someone
else might be able to see the book in the mirror. Or, in the case of