Thinking...thinking...
Feb. 24th, 2006 06:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ksmithI read this, and I ponder. Especially this statement by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tnh in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 08:58 pm (UTC)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.