> I write poetry, and I wouldn't put it in any type of public eyesight without
> a copyright, this ensures the security of my work. No other party can claim
> it to be theirs, at least not for 70 years or so. This is a measure that
> does hold up in court, if someone else tags their name to a work of poetry I
> created, a copyright proves it. If this is "arguable because we don't
> protect markets in other things", then get on it, don't try to demean what's
> authors have, it's a needed tool. It is for my protection, not the
No one can claim your work as theirs, ever, even without copyright-- that's simple fraud. Why is it that those most in favor of copyright seem to know so little about what it actually is? Copyright is not what prevents me from claiming I wrote your poem; it prevents me from posting it on my site with the note "Here's a poem I like by Gina Miller...". It prevents me from publishing it a collection book, or making an artistic variation of it. Copyright has nothing to do with protecting the "integrity" of your work or your credit--it's about protecting your market from competition. Whether or not that's a good thing is still arguable, but let's call a spade a spade.
I am an author and programmer; I earn my living writing things, most of which are copyrighted by my employer. I am thoroughly convinced that in a world without copyrights I would earn twice as much money as I do now and produce better work, because my storehouse of information to draw upon would be freer, and the demand would increase for creative work that was timely and original. Artists who cling to copyrights like a security blanket deserve my "demeaning", and I make no apology for it.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <email@example.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC