Re: Moral and legal grounds of copyright law

[James Smith <munnari!cc.nu.oz.au!CCJS@uunet.UU.NET>]

Path: cc!ccjs
From: CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Moral and legal grounds of copyright law
Date: 31 Aug 89 13:50:22 EST
References: <8908290206.AA29236@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com>
Organization: University of Newcastle
Lines: 82

The following is turning into a flame.  If you're not interested
in such, hit 'n' now.


Note: I haven't yet seen Lazlo's original article.  If I misrepresent
him, I apologise in advance.


Lazlo Nibble writes (in reply to me):

>> Kate does not own her music, any more than an author owns the text of a
>> novel he writes or a scientist owns the design of an invention he creates.
>> Such things belong to humanity.  What she does own is the right to copy
>> them.

> I don't know the legal standing of this argument, but I think that
> morally, it's unbelievably corrupt.  

And I believe it is unbelievably morally corrupt to think otherwise.
If Alan Bond were to destroy 'Sunflowers', would it be a moral act?
Would it be immoral to try and stop him?  But he bought it from the man
who bought it from the man ... who bought it from Van Gogh.  If it was
Van Gogh's to do with as he wished, one can raise no objection to Alan
Bond doing the same.  And if it is immoral for Alan Bond to destroy it,
it would have been just as immoral for Van Gogh to do so.

A work of art, like an invention or a scientific discovery, is not an
object in the way that a bottle of wine or a ballpoint pen is.  It
cannot belong to any one person, it belongs to humanity as a whole.
Once created, the artist does not have the moral right to suppress or
destroy it.  

In fact the law underpins this by arranging things so that after about
40 years the music falls into the public domain.

> If I write a novel and don't care
> to share it with anyone outside of an immediate circle of close
> friends, then I think that anyone who copies it and passes it around to
> the world at large is *in the wrong*, both legally AND morally.

This sort of thing happens all the time.  The letters of people such
as Shakespeare, Lovecraft, and Howard have been published, even though
they were private material.  In fact, much of Howard's published work
was draft work never meant for publication, and he certainly would
never have wanted it publish.  Yet it now forms part of the world's
literary heritage.

I guess the answer to your question is that it depends on whether
your novel is a work of art, or just private jottings of no literary
worth.

> I happen to believe that the creator of an
> artistic work has the moral right to decide what ultimately happens to
> that work.

And I believe that art once created becomes part of the world's
cultural heritage, and that the artist has no moral right to destroy
it.


Kevin Gurney writes (in reply to Lazlo):

> The point that James is
> trying to make is that _legally_ an artist does NOT own the creation, only
> the right to reproduce (or destroy, or cloister) it. She can't own the
> notes, only how the notes are distributed, if at all.

No, my point is just the reverse, though I'm not disagreeing with what
you are saying.  Legally an artist has the right to destroy or suppress
her work; I'm not arguing that.  However, I feel that morally an artist
never owns her work once it has been created.  


Lazlo, I understand your point of view, though I don't agree with it,
and I'm sure you feel the same about mine.  Let's leave it at that.

Jim

-- 
James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au
The bluebird of happiness having been absent from his life for many
years, David is visited by the chicken of depression.