Scott Ingram <singram at videotron.ca> writes: > Fine, you want to tell Steve that you're going to produce 'Jarhead: The > Movie' and not give him a cent? > Jarhead was written over 18 years ago, you know. This was my point about how the author should not have to watch his baby being tortured and killed. Copyright should, as I said, extend to the end of the author's life. (Another reason is that the value of early works is often largely based on the later works, so that value should still belong to the author.) > There's no way that 20 years is long enough, perhaps not even 30 or 40. I'm > 35 now, and I still get nostalgic for materials I've read/watched when I was > a teenager/preteen. I imagine this won't change as I become even older. You seem to be saying that copyright should extend until people lose interest in the work. > > If it was engineered to expire after 18 years people would be more likely > to > > 'create' more not less they'd realize they can only ride one wave for so > > long and have to paddle back out to the ocean of creation. How many people > > still get paid for work they did over 20 years ago outside of the realm of > > Arts? We haven't even discussed Trademarks yet either... that's a whole > > 'nother ball of wax. > > Oh I see. "We're taking away the rights to your work because we want to make > you a better writer. It's for your own good. Really!" Hang on; we're not *taking away* any rights. We're considering the granting of monopoly rights to copy the work, under certain terms. Quite a lot of interesting literary work has come out of the Sherlock Holmes universe, after the estate no longer controlled it. A lot of literature is heavily based on Shakespeare, and couldn't be if he were still in copyright (consider Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). I think we agreed earlier that it's important things go into the pot, and the question is *when*. > As far as I can see, the only result that will come from the early > termination of copyrights is an upsurge in the creation of t-shirts, comic > books, and made-for-tv movies based on 20 year old intellectual property.... > without having to give a cent to their creators! > > In other words, you're taking the 'property' from the authors, and giving it > to everyone else so THEY can make money off of 'property' they never > created, never promoted, and never worked for. > > "It's much more important to reward individual human beings who actually > create things than it is to create valuable "property"." > > EXACTLY!! > > Why are you guys so against creators making money off of their creations? Or > hell, even just sitting on their creations and refusing to let anyone make > any money? (ie: the refusal Calvin and Hobbes creator, Bill Watterson, to > allow toys to be made of his characters). Which "you guys" is this? I feel like that's aimed at me, since I'm the previous-but-one poster here, but I don't feel this describes my position at all. > Is the inability to publish works about hobbits named Frodo and vampires > named Sethra really inhibiting your creativity so much? > > You all seem so concerned that people may make money off their own hard > work. I've yet to see any CONCRETE examples of how this hurts anyone..aside > from those who wish to steal from creators and benefiting off of their years > of hard work and self-promotion. > > Why are you so afraid that people will prosper? This NOT a zero-sum game! "Why are you so afraid" is one of those red flag phrases. Your emotions have overcome your intellect, and we're probably not going to get anywhere with this discussion unless you calm down a little. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info