The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.
Betraying Salinger
11–20 of 29 posts
Re: Betraying Salinger
#12The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.
...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want?
How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?
Re: Betraying Salinger
#13A review of the story in question, for those who are curious: http://www.thesatirist.com/books/HAPWORTH.html I also tracked down a copy of the full text, but in the interests of some kind of vague respect for copyright I'll leave you to figure out how to obtain it for yourself.
It's also available on the Complete New Yorker DVDs, and in most public libraries, if you still believe in the world outside of the internet.
Re: Betraying Salinger
#14The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.
...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?
> ...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want?
That is exactly what I want.
> How long do you think the copyright terms should be?
Personally I think 20 years is a reasonable number. The original Copyright Act of 1790 established a term of 14 years with the option of one renewal. Remember that this was in the age of manual printing presses and horse-drawn wagons. In this age of on-demand printing and digital distribution 20 years is more than enough.
The copyright system isn't a right in the sense of speech or assembly, it's a temporary monopoly granted to an author in order to "..promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..". Any aspect of copyright law which fails to promote those goals fails to uphold the constitutional foundation and ultimate purpose of the copyright system.
Copyright law exists in order to encourage authors to create by allowing them to benefit from their creation, but how does allowing a person to collect royalties on something they made 50 years ago promote creativity?
Re: Betraying Salinger
#15The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.
...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?
[deleted]
Re: Betraying Salinger
#16The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.
...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?
[deleted]
Re: Betraying Salinger
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?
> ...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? That is exactly what I want. > How long do you think the copyright terms should be? Personally I think 20 years is a reasonable number. The original Copyright Act of 1790 established a term of 14 years with the option of one renewal. Remember that this was in the age of manual printing presses and horse-drawn wagons. In this age of on-dema…
It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. Writing a book may take several years, and it's not always the first book that succeeds. Capping the potential upside is definitely going to discourage writing works that will take a large investment of time and research.
And let's not even talk about all of the books that only became popular more than twenty years after initial publication. Imagine Tolkien in retirement on a modest pension while his books are suddenly bestsellers...
Re: Betraying Salinger
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? That is exactly what I want. > How long do you think the copyright terms should be? Personally I think 20 years is a reasonable number. The original Copyright Act of 1790 established a term of 14 years with the option of one renewal. Remember that this was in the age of manual printing presses and horse-drawn wagons. In this age of on-dema…
It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. Writing a book may take several years, and it's not always the first book that succeeds. Capping the potential upside is definitely going to discourage writing works that will take a large investment of time and research. And let's not even talk about all of the books that only became popular more than twenty years after initial…
> It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors.
That may be, but remember that this all comes at a cost. Copyright is essentially theft. All art is based upon that past. No one exists in a vacuum and all works are created in a context of deep history and culture that belongs to all of us. When we are denied the right to copy or make derivatives of a work it robs us of part of our culture. People in Afghanistan can legally print and read that Salinger book but we cannot. Is that right?
Tolkien is probably a bad example. I'm pretty sure his main motivation in writing was his exploration with language and not fat royalties. Furthermore, both him and his wife are dead. Why the hell isn't LotR in the public domain?
Re: Betraying Salinger
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? That is exactly what I want. > How long do you think the copyright terms should be? Personally I think 20 years is a reasonable number. The original Copyright Act of 1790 established a term of 14 years with the option of one renewal. Remember that this was in the age of manual printing presses and horse-drawn wagons. In this age of on-dema…
It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. Writing a book may take several years, and it's not always the first book that succeeds. Capping the potential upside is definitely going to discourage writing works that will take a large investment of time and research. And let's not even talk about all of the books that only became popular more than twenty years after initial…
In the XVII century, copyright in Spain was a period of ten years long, since the first edition, not renewable. I'm talking of a country notorious for its steep geography and bad communications, at a period of both dangerous colonisation, wars and abject poverty. That century is now known as the Spanish Golden Age of Literature.
History has proven that, past a point, money does not seem to translate into creativeness. Cultures almost always have their most creative periods at times of social and intellectual changes (say, XIX-XX century Germany) and when intellectual work is regarded as prestigious and respected by the public (physics on America post-Einstein/WW2).
Re: Betraying Salinger
#20An interesting tale. Salinger wanted the book published but also wanted nobody to know that it had been published.
Alternatively, he was bored and felt like dicking with a publisher for a while at great expense to them.