Joshua Kronengold wrote: > 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. Whose harm? Do you *really* believe that?! > >>> 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.