tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post115081295715636640..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Does It Matter if Copyright is Property?William Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-59253754360229361602008-07-29T05:33:00.000-04:002008-07-29T05:33:00.000-04:00I imagine the implication of right of first public...I imagine the implication of right of first publication as a dimension interest grows from the inquiry of whether it is an attribute interest in an instinctive law sense that is discerned and imposed by statute.<BR/>_____________________________<BR/>james<BR/><A HREF="http://www.clickidentify.com" REL="nofollow">Wide Circles</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1151110752278799162006-06-23T20:59:00.000-04:002006-06-23T20:59:00.000-04:00Copyright is certainly "property" in the sense of ...Copyright is certainly "property" in the sense of being descendible. It is also clear it is not a natural right, but a statutory right. It is also true that even though a statutory right, it is protected under Fifth Amendment, although this caused nice questions before one could sue the USG for infringement. The view I expressed in the blog is, I think, which may be similar to Timothy's, is that in discussing infringement, and infringement only, describing copyright as property is a rhetorical device used to get to particular results, results that I think can in particular cases be too unbalanced. In order to have the necessary flexibility to promote the progress of science, I was proposing use of different analogies.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1151081216400447672006-06-23T12:46:00.000-04:002006-06-23T12:46:00.000-04:00I think the significance of copyright as a propert...I think the significance of copyright as a property interest arises from the question of whether it is a property interest in a natural law sense that is recognized and enforced by statute, or one that is created and defined by statute, going back to the Statute of Anne. <BR/>The former conception -- copyright as a property interest <I>recognized</I> by the Act -- calls for a broad construction of the scope of protection given to property identified by a deed that is narrowly construed. The latter conception -- copyright as a property interest <I>created</I> by statute -- requires a narrow construction of the Act, as though it were a deed describing the property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150990106336759082006-06-22T11:28:00.000-04:002006-06-22T11:28:00.000-04:00When we say that the copyright (not the copyrighte...When we say that the copyright (not the copyrighted work) is personal property for some purposes, isn't this merely a way of saying that, in the absence of explicit statute law, cases will be resolved by analogy to the law of personal property ? Would we get a better outcome in hard cases if we drew our default principles from some other area of law, or would we merely be exchanging one set of conundra for another ?<BR/><BR/>Many careless writers, of course, make the mistake of writing as though that the copyrighted work itself, not the copyright, is personal property. If treating copyrights as some other form of legal privilege than property would prevent people from falling into this mistake, that might itself be a worthwhile benefit.<BR/><BR/>Adam Smith (Lectures on Jurisprudence) thought that a copyright was an "exclusive privilege", like a right of first refusal, or the exclusive right of a hunter hot on the trail to the hare, unless he gave over the chase before taking her. So there is precedent for thinking of the copyright as something other than personal property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150906273748487922006-06-21T12:11:00.000-04:002006-06-21T12:11:00.000-04:00The assignability point is compelling. Trespass to...The assignability point is compelling. Trespass to land, trespass to goods - they are all claims in tort. Fishing rights, shooting rights, easements, even the right to appoint a clergyman to a Church of England benefice (an advowson) - these are all property and you cannot strike a match on any of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150903655119619752006-06-21T11:27:00.000-04:002006-06-21T11:27:00.000-04:00Bruce:You can assign at least some other types of ...Bruce:<BR/><BR/>You can assign at least some other types of causes of action, although not copyright infringement. I don't know about negligence. I was suggesting though that since copyright infringement is regarded as a tort, that in thinking about infringement we think about it as the tort it is and not as infringement of property with all the baggage that goes with that characterization, like you're a trespasser, you stole my property, etc.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150858024112497482006-06-20T22:47:00.000-04:002006-06-20T22:47:00.000-04:00If copyright is just a tort, how come you can tran...If copyright is just a tort, how come you can transfer it before there's been any infringement? Can you transfer future claims of negligence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150837679050456892006-06-20T17:07:00.000-04:002006-06-20T17:07:00.000-04:00Zvi:Now I figured it out. My 7 pages are amendment...Zvi:<BR/>Now I figured it out. My 7 pages are amendments to the 14 pages bill you link too. I don;t understand why Ingersoll would on the same day over amendments and a bill, but if you would like to do a guest blog ont eh bill, that would be great, you can email me at Williampatry@yahoo.com<BR/><BR/>Section 15 which you referred and linked to, concerns treating copyright as personal property for succession and intestacy purposes.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150828952933459652006-06-20T14:42:00.000-04:002006-06-20T14:42:00.000-04:00Here is the actual page for section 15 of the bill...<A HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=028/llhb028.db&recNum=34" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is the actual page for section 15 of the bill...the bill is 14 pages, and the amendments are 7 more. I did a history of the bill just recently...it's somewhat interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150819341996365252006-06-20T12:02:00.000-04:002006-06-20T12:02:00.000-04:00Here is a link to the bill: http://memory.loc.gov/...Here is a link to the bill: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=028/llhb028.db&recNum=37<BR/><BR/>To print it out it is best to go to the higher definition option and each page of the 7 page bill has to be printed out separately.<BR/><BR/>The bill begins with amendments to dramatic works and musical compositions, but then in referring to things like sculpture the bills grants "the sole right and property of very new and original sculpture ...."William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1150817045375206862006-06-20T11:24:00.000-04:002006-06-20T11:24:00.000-04:00I'd also comment that the Ingersoll Copyright Bill...I'd also comment that the Ingersoll Copyright Bill of 1844 (28 HR 9 section 15 - available on the LOC's Century of Lawmaking site) contained a provision to explicitly make copyright property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com