We would, of course, have to promise to honor all rights and privileges of both authors now, unto eternity. I promise–if you will….
//

We would, of course, have to promise to honor all rights and privileges of both authors now, unto eternity. I promise–if you will….
//

You have to view the situation as a whole. The producers refuse to sell the product that people want (content that works on existing devices). The producers actively prevent content shifting so that media can work in a variety of situations. They actively prevent time shifting so that media can be watched can be watched on the customer’s own schedule. The producers plan for obsolescence so that the customers have to repurchase the content or, at least, the old content won’t be competing against the new content. And on top of all this, they have the gall to proclaim that limiting access to content made before their grandparents were born, content that isn’t even available on the market anymore, is somehow necessary for the creation of future works? The wonder is that there are people who aren’t upset with the current state.

I don’t agree that laws respecting intellectual rights are unnecessary, but I can understand why there are a growing number of people with no respect for such rights.

When copyright gets intenden where you cant even touch carecters or idea’s of a certain book without trespassing on someones copyright, writing anything thats not completely made up imaginary world stuff becomes a minefield of legal threats fears of DMCA takedowns and what not

Patents offer this protection touch something pattened and you pay a percentage period, but unlike for copyright fair use for patent include any non commercial use and they only run for 20years.

In a time where more people with less dedication and resources are publishing more and more material there will be a conflict and the whole DRM debacle and the assault on what ever fair use wiggle roem there actually is with copyright from the major lobbyiest goup mean that there is a real and percived conflict.

Another reason they would want to settle is that the Wind Done Gone was a reinterpretation of the original tale from the black characters’ perspective. GWTW has long had the bad reputation of being racist in its perspective (book and movie); the WDG was pointing that out; the Mitchell estate, in trying to squash WDG, was only reaffirming that bad reputation. Hence not only a settlement that let WDG go into print, but the Mitchell estate paid for the privilege with their donation (implicitly acknowledging some basis for the accusations of racism).

None of that applies here. I’d be willing to lay money that Mad Magazine or some other satirical outlet such as Harvard Lampoon has already done takeoffs on Catcher, without a peep from Mr Salinger. Salinger has a strong case here in the USA (I don’t know what the law is in Finland) and will prevail. I doubt the publishers of the sequel will even try to go to court, they’ll back down right away.

As for Salinger’s “artistic credibility”, you are right to call me out on that. I thought on that one somewhat less hastily and blogged about it at the link above. I would say, though, that suing someone who is only flattering you in the truest way does make you something of a phony. Though certainly a 90-year old man is entitled to his crotchety opinions.

Now Greg,
Most published works frankly stink (I will happily invoke Sturgeon’s Law here). Shoot I would be happy if I could keep authors writing dumb ass sequels to the books they have actually written. I think it should be remembered that many of Shakespeare’s works were based on earlier versions of existing stories, as was Thomas Mallory’s Le Morte D’Arthur and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

Parodies can sometimes be fun, but quality writing based on other authors works is rare, and, even if just for a sake of decorum, I would think the writer of the derivative work should allow the original author to be a generation dead before plundering.

I’m not especially enamored with Salinger’s books, but is within his full right to prevent others from encroaching on his work.

As for Salinger’s case, it is yet another example of why we need copyright reform. I don’t care how much money he’s made off this American classic, I just think the copyright term is too long, regardless. Not that you can blame him for milking it as long as he has.

In reply to Bill, Salinger’s artistic credibility is in serious doubt if he actually has tons of manuscripts just waiting to be published. Maybe they don’t exist. Maybe they’re no good. Who knows. But I contend that a real artist would publish them simply because he wrote them, however much money he was making off his other works. Or not. If he’s not publishing them because he lacks a financial incentive, then what he is is a phony.

The first is that the case regarding The Wind Done Gone was probably settled for a simple reason. Ultimately the Mitchell estate probably didn’t really have a strong legal case to begin with and it was cheaper for the publisher to settle than to fight the case. The book was a satire of Gone with the Wind and therefore was protected by fair use. In contrast, this book appears to be more of a direct sequel to Catcher in the Rye; as such, it is probably not protected by fair use. It would be a major (if welcome) extension to fair use if the Courts were to decide that unauthorized sequels qualified, however I don’t expect it.

2. Salinger is in fact the perfect example of how the current copyright law in this country serves as a disincentive to the production and publication of new works. He has essentially been living off the royalty checks he gets every year from the thousands of copies of Catcher in the Rye students have to buy for their H.S. Lit classes. The few people who have known him well enough to be let into his inner circle suggests that he has dozens of manuscripts waiting to be published. However, since he still gets plenty of money from the book he wrote almost 60 years ago, he has little incentive to publish.

Now granted, not every author responds like Salinger does, and in fact many authors make enough money with one or two of their works in just a year or two of sales to never need work again. That being said however, it is hard to see how the current virtually perpetual copyright system that exists (where copyrights get extended retroactively) benefits anyone but the estates of authors and the corporate holders of copyrights. It certainly does not benefit the general welfare.