Scott Ingram writes: >"Joshua Kronengold" <mneme at io.com> writes: >> Eh. Nothing completely original is worth reading. Everything else is >> a matter of degree. >Very little is totally original anyway. My point exactly. Unusual can be very good...but for the most part, original==incomprehensible and inaccessible. And yes, I like Pamela Dean's work precisely because of the way it references Shakespeare and the like (and, ok, tend to have a "why did you do -that-?" reaction when the plot shows up). >> Someone else making money off your work? It's going to happen >> eventually; the key is to making sure you make your share (which for >> most works will be a lion's share with or without lifetime >> copyrights). >You won't make a penny if your rights expire one year after they make a >movie from your work. Which is why copyright should be structured so they don't -do- that. Movies are time-sensitive, as is book popularity, so if copyright lasts for, say, 30 years (possibly too short, but still potentially reasonable), they're not going to want to wait 25 years before making a movie; they're going to strike while the iron is hot and the book is still popular. >Damn, that would be frustrating to LIVE through. Sure. But so is lots; laws aren't created to avoid frustration -- they're created to avoid harm. >> their book gains popularity, and sequels/movie rights are in the >> offing, the heirs are taking a serious hit, whereas with a fixed term, >> they've got the same chances everyone else does. >This isn't about chances, it's about authors having power over, and >benefiting from, their work while they're alive. They don't. And every author knows this. No law in the universe (except natural law -- wanna amend that? :) can protect you against someone masturbating your work, turning it into a religion (1) or deciding that they've been inspired by it to kill a kitten (or their daughter). Once a creation has been released, it's in people's minds, in their thoughts, and if it's very good, influencing their actions. An author who is afraid of what people will do with their work, of losing control of it, enough to be influenced by same, will never display it, no matter how much protection is granted. Because, in the end? The creation we're talking about...is speech. The derivative works constrained by overly long copyright terms...is speech. And you really should need a better reason than "it might hurt someone's feelings" to constrain speech. (1): Ok, you probably can prohibit or license -performance- of your work in religious ceremonies, but that's both Just Silly, and they can still have silent prayers. -- Joshua Kronengold (mneme at io.com) "I've been teaching |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) --^--him...to live, to breathe, to walk, to sample the /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\joy on each road, and the sorrow at each turning. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ /-\\\I'm sorry if I kept him out too late"--Vlad Taltos '---''(_/--' (_/-'