Thinking...thinking...

[ksmith]

I read this, and I ponder. Especially this statement by tnh in makinglight:

It is right that what's new and unique in a writer's work be recognized as peculiarly their own. That's fine. But copyright is not a statement of inalienable natural right. It's a social convention, intended to reward (and thus encourage) writers and publishers to produce more books. To pervert it into a claim of perpetual ownership, especially when that claim is being forwarded by large entertainment conglomerates, is the moral equivalent of driving a fence around the commons.

I will admit that I do not currently make a bulk of my income from my copyrights. I would be interested in hearing how someone who does feels about some of these discussions.

Do I, or my heirs/assignees, have the right to own the rights in perpetuity of a work of entertainment that I have written? If we were talking about a company, a family fortune, or other property, the answer would be, with some limits, yes. I/they would own these rights/things/companies until we ran them into the ground/spent it all/outlived our commercial usefulness/whatever. It seems to me that the willingness on the part of some to restrict these rights is in inverse proportion to the income they derive from these or similar rights. I could be missing something here, of course. But I get edgy when I see the copyright as social convention argument, as though only good manners is standing between Jani Kilian and public domain.

I will admit that my kneejerk reaction to the issue is "It's my fuckin' book. My fuckin' characters. I wrote it as no one else would. It is a work of entertainment, an option, like the chocolate cookie or the tiramisu. No one needs it to live. No one's freedoms will be infringed if it is not available to be read. It is not a new method of sorting information, or a vaccine. It is a luxury of life, not a necessity. Not a right.

Comments

[torrilin.livejournal.com]

I'm very grateful that perpetual copyright doesn't exist. I'd never have read Jane Austen if it did. Instead, I was able to pick up all her books from Project Gutenberg around this time last year and *devour* them. Since Miss Austen is long dead, any money I would have spent on her books (none, as I was flat broke at the time) would not have benefited her. And when I buy a book, I prefer that the maximum money go to the author, who ought to get *some* benefit from my enjoyment of their work. I'm also comfortable with it going to the author's husband/wife, since in my view marriage is a partnership. But the kids, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and other assorted relatives did not do the work, so I can't quite feel as happy handing them the royalties.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

But the kids, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and other assorted relatives did not do the work, so I can't quite feel as happy handing them the royalties.

Even if the writer might have wanted it that way?

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

The public ceedes the write to copy and reproduce a copyrighted work, in order to encourage a creator to continue making new works (by allowing the creator to get money in exchange for his/her creations.)

Once the writer is dead, there is no new creation.

Once that option of more works from an author is removed from the equation, there is little incentive for me to keep giving his descendents money... there is no chance of new works... unless you count derrivative works. And oddly enogh, derrivative works become MORE likely and possible, once the work passes into public domain.

An interesting side effect... once a work becomes public domain, Fan-fic becomes legal, and thus really good writers can make MONEY from writing what is essentially "fan-fic", if they so desire. William Hope Hodgson's "The Night Land" is an example of this -- there are many contemporary fantastic writers out there who have written stories set in the world of The Night Land.

The infinate variations of derrivative works from "dracula" or "frankenstein" are another example. Yet another exmaple is Alan Moore's graphic novel, The Leauge of Extraordianry gentleman. Now THAT is a piece of Hip-hop creations... sampling and mixing together all kinds of different works creating an exciting new work.

Anyway, not trying to jump down any ones throat, or preach. Just following a train of thought.

[torrilin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, even then. I don't go out and buy Todd McCaffrey's books just because his mom has him as her designated heir to Pern. I may someday be bored and try one of his from the library, but I'm not in any real rush. When I discovered that the "new" Darkover novels being published under MZB's names were not primarily her work, I stopped buying them. I don't make a great fuss over buying Heinlein books for my Dad's collection new. Tho if I can, I try to buy new there.

The author has the right to designate heirs, and I've got the right to spend my money as I wish. That means if your stuff was out in hardcover, I'd buy the hardcover in preference to the paperback, but Miss Austen is in an electronic edition. If I can't choose a public domain edition and the author is dead, then it's likely the book will languish behind the books of authors who are alive and will get some good from my money. I can get *more* from them see :).

(don't take this as any kind of moral stance please, this is how I prioritize things with my book buying money. I can't afford every book in the world that I might want, so I pick and choose)