Patterson’s analysis about the scope of the copyright owners right to copy the work
Based on Patterson’s review, copyright is a statutory right, but it cannot qualify to be a natural right it is difficult to prove that an individual utilized the works of another person in producing his or her materials, whether written, reprinted, or duplicated. The scholar clearly defines the meaning of copying by suggesting that it entails duplicating an original material through photocopying or imitating an original work through the process of utilizing a few portions of the innovative material. The rights of the individual as regards copyright are simply restricted to printing, publishing, and vending meaning that no person is allowed to benefit directly from the works of another person through selling the material in the market. However, any person is allowed to cite the original work through proper attribution. This implies that translation is any work and imitation through speaking is allowed, as long as the rights of the owner are not infringed. The law published in the 19th century allowed the owner to reprint, duplicate, and publish the original work for use in the market, even though the public interest was always given priority implying that the reprinted or published material should not cause public damage.
The scholar argues further that the current copyright law is better understood through the analysis of section 106, which has an elaborate procedure of using another person’s works, as detailed in the 1976 act. The current law states that the owner has the right to reproduce the work in copies, organize copied works, issue several copies of the work, perform the work in the public, and finally present the work when necessary. Based on this, the scholar tends to suggest that the right to copy is considered an independent right. Therefore, the person is held responsible for infringing any of the five rights since they are closely related. This suggests that anyone printing the material without selling is committing a criminal offense while an individual engaging in the sale of the material without considering its sources is also a criminal. Section 106 of the copyright law suggests that at least two exclusive rights are involved, one of them being the exclusive right to adjust, share out, perform, and present the material. In this regard, copyright exists as a subject right meaning that utilization of the material is considered a very important right. The right to copy is a different right that functions as a predicate right that is much needed for the operation of the subject rights.
The future of copyright
The major aim of copyright law is to give the owner the chance to benefit from the technology or the innovative work. The idea of an ownerless society would be dangerous to the world of science and technology, as people’s works and materials would be imitated without taking any legal actions. Many scientists would be demoralized to an extent of dropping their programs aimed at coming up with new technologies, equipment, and ways of doing things. There would be nothing as copyright, as individuals would be willing to make use of other people’s ideas without fearing the law. Unfortunately, the idea of an ownerless society does not support scientific discoveries and technological development. With time, insufficient laws to protect innovativeness and originality will kill the copyright practice since such laws would not be needed to protect novelty.