Hey guys,
Music to write by: “Renegades of Funk“ by Rage Against the Machine
There has been a lot of buzz around the blogosphere recently about Copyright, so I thought I’d throw a few of my own ideas into the mix.
Cory Doctorow recently issued a call for writers to write a reply to SF novelist Mark Helprin’s call in the NYT for copyright to be extended eternally. I think it’s obvious to most writers that this is a Bad Idea. For an illustration of why this is so, crafted better than I ever could, read Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson.
Personally I cannot imagine a world of eternal copyright (although it would drastically cut down on the number of Bad News Bears rip offs that come out year after year). Imagine if you could no longer write about feuding families and star-crossed lovers because Shakespeare already did that? Or shipwrecks? Or gunfights at high noon? This is extreme, but you see what I mean.
On another note, due to the advent of POD technologies, Simon & Schuster has modified their boilerplate contract so that the rights to a book they purchase never revert back to the author (even if the book goes off market, or doesn’t sell any copies). They’ll own your book. Think of it. They could take your book off the market, not sell it ANYWHERE (even Amazon), and you could NEVER get it back. Ridiculous. Read SFWA’s response to this policy here.
Lastly, I just thought I’d throw this out there because it’s interesting. Landi Guidetti was recently sued for copyright violation for downloading 4 songs over the USC network. One of Cory’s students interviewed him. It’s damn interesting. Have a look.
What are your thoughts on Copyright? As authors, this is near and dear to our hearts. We make our livings on it. But technology is gradually rendering it obsolete. Or is it? How do you think technology will affect us?
3 Comments(+Add)
Every time someone compares a copyright to a house, I feel like someone is kicking at the inside of my brain.
A writer should be embarrassed to use such a clumsy analogy. Who builds a house for soul purpose of sharing it with other people, a house that has no value unless it is used by people other than the builder. A house that the builder sells over and over again, but never loses its value. A house that does not decay with age, never needs to be rebuilt or repaired. A house that if built well enough, ends becoming entwined with entire generations, entire cultures. A house which plants the seeds of other houses… perhaps the original builder owns those houses too, or at least, some portion of them.
In other words: NOT A HOUSE AT ALL.
The government isn’t *taking* away anyone’s book, they’re taking away a special protection for something that cannot be easily defined materially. While personal property ownership and rights could certainly exist in absence of a large-scale government, Copyright could not. Copyright can only exist *because* of the government. If the government minded its own business entirely as this delusional old boob seems to want, he’d never have had a damned copyright in the first place.
When I buy a book, the only thing that prevents me from owning the words as well as the paper is law. The right to sell words, and still own them is a legal construct… worthwhile and beneficial to writers, I agree, but that’s all. That any government, any society, should be obliged to maintain that legal construct for a length of time (even 70 years is more than suits my tastes), seems an unreasonable, and selfish demand.
At the end, I should have said, “an unlimited length of time”.
I’m just impressed you were listening to RATM. Add a Waylon Jennings tune to the mix and I’ll be extremely impressed.
And yes, you can like both Rage and Waylon. It’s all rebel outlaw music.