----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b at dd-b.net> > 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. You, know, I had spent 15 minutes crafting a response to you, then I dug up some of your original responses on this subject. It seems the email that I had replied to had mis-represented your position on a few matters. For example; when you said copyright should expire after 18 years " I'd -guess- a good number for copyright is somewhere between 30 and 50 years. OTOH, part of me says that the "right" number is 18: the year your kid's allowed to move out of the house. :)" ... you meant 'lifespan of the author plus 18 years'. Hell, I prefer lifespan-plus-fifty but I wouldn't lifespan-plus-eighteen isn't that bad either. > > > 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. The quote I'm replying to is from Gametech, who, in past posts has declared almost no respect for creator's rights at all. You seem to be in favor of 'author's life plus N years'... Gametech is altering his position from None to N years. > 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*. Agreed <snipped long quote> > > 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. No, it's aimed at Gametech, sorry if you got caught in the friendly fire. > > 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. As our opinions on the life of copyright seem to coincide ...give or take 35 years after the death of the author. Which is fine. As for my emotions... yes they probably had gotten out of hand, however, I hope you understand that a crucial part of your position was missing from the email I was replying to. -Scott