More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Copyrighting the Great Pyramids, dissing bloggers, bypassing wimpy publishing types, and other holiday fun
December 25, 2007 | 6:55 pm
|
By David Rothman
Can you copyright the Great Pyramids? That’s the goal of Zahi Hawass, described by AFP as “the charismatic and controversial head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities.” Beware, Luxor Hotel (photo below)!
So what’s next? I live near George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon. Applying Hawass’s logic, does this mean that whenever someone builds a pseudo-Mount Vernon tract house, the builder owes a copyright fee? Oh, what fun.
More seriously, this is a priceless example of the boomerang effect of Western intellectual property law. Especially if the present economic, political and cultural decline of the United States continues, I predict we’ll see more of such silliness—as developing countries grow more aggressive, especially when they become developed countries. Washington’s fanaticism on intellectual property matters could hurt America as the flow of creativity and innovations from other nations increases. Simply put, we’re not just talking about old pyramids. Meanwhile I’m wondering if it’s any coincidence that Hawass, holder of a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, spent time in States. Oh, how he learned American ways!
Other links:
- Doris Lessing‘s grumblings against the Net, especially bloggers, go on. I’m actually sympathetic to one complaint. She says that “it is common for young men and women who have had years of education, to know nothing about the world, to have read nothing, knowing only some specialty or other, for instance, computers.” Exactly.The opposites of Lessing, by the way, are the techies who expect civilians to become almost quasi-hackers in order to get their work done. Yes, we need good open source tools for publishing, but ideally they won’t be too challenging for smart English lit majors. (Thanks to Mike Cane, Link Santa, for spotting the N.Y.T. item before I did. I love readers to scoop me.)
- In a Poets and Writers interview, agent Lynn Nesbit says publishers are demanding more polished work and agents are functioning even more than before as editors (via the always-useful MediaBistro).Once writers could bypass agents and directly try their wares on large publishers, via a query letter if nothing else. Now an author usually must hope that the right people in both categories can muster “sufficient enthusiasm” or whatever the excuse of the day is. Hardly the best situation for new voices. Might this also be one reason why fiction sales aren’t growing the way they should? The best novels often go against the grain. Too many CEOs in publishing, and their friends in marketing, want already-proven approaches in already-proven genres. Or they’re reluctant to mix genres too much—a problem that E could mitigate since “shelf space” in various categories is unlimited.
Will the economics of e-books and POD help make publishers a little less wimpy? Let’s hope so! Nesbit actually has some upbeat thoughts on POD and wonders if big publishers couldn’t turn into distributors, with smaller houses originating more books than they do now?
- Advocates of 14-year copyright terms might check out a Portfolio interview with Andrew Wylie, another Power Agent. As Wylie sees it, “quality—which is more valuable over time—has been undervalued, and quantity—which is less valuable over time—has been overvalued.” Wylie was not speaking in a copyright context but rather in the context of the excessive influence that big retail chains hold over the publishing industry. Still, it’s reasonable to apply Wylie’s comments to copyright terms.The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is a Hollywood-bought toxin for culture since it reduces the interest of the young in public domain works. On the other hand, terms should be long enough to provide a reasonable incentive for writers of genuinely literary books intended to last. Larry Lessig’s proposal of a small fee for keeping copyrights alive after a certain time could address the orphan problem. Now, here’s one more idea I like—different copyright terms for different kinds of work. Why should a literary novel be treated the same as an ephemeral computer guide?
Technorati Tags: intellectual property,Egypt,Lynn Nesbit,Andrew Wylie,literary agents,Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
I support copyright for the lifetime of the author, because I know sometimes fame doesn’t come right away
But I absolutely do not think JK Rowling’s heirs should plan to earn their keep on Harry Potter a hundred years from now. The whole point of the public domain is to both allow works to pass into the common pool of culture of our society, and to encourage new works to be created (for example, if Micky Mouse was in the public domain, they would have to come up with something new). Of course, if JK Rowling’s heirs want to write their own Harry Potter sequel (just as Gregory Macguire wrote his own Wozard of Oz sequel with ‘Wicked’) that would of course be protected during their lifetime 
“More seriously, this is a priceless example of the boomerang effect of Western intellectual property law.”
Exactly. I can’t wait till he sues the US government for putting a pyramid on its currency
“Doris Lessing’s grumblings against the Net, especially bloggers, go on. I’m actually sympathetic to one complaint. She says that “it is common for young men and women who have had years of education, to know nothing about the world, to have read nothing, knowing only some specialty or other, for instance, computers.””
Now wait a gosh darn minute here. Is it really common for young men and women who have had years of education to read and/or know nothing about the world? Common? Really?
And she’s specifically including bloggers in this?
It sounds like it is common for curmudgeonly Nobel Prizer winners to make sweeping generalizations about people they probably know next to nothing about.
Weird for someone who was roundly criticized by “literary” types for her dip into scifi/fantasy in the 1970s.
I guess *everyone* has some snobbishness they just have to get out.
Copyright, is not a “natural right” or to use the term from the declaration of independence, it is not a god given right.
Copyright was implemented not for the benefit of the author but for the benefit of the public. It was thought that authors would produce more work if they had exclusive rights to make money off their works for a limited amount of time. Thus enriching the public domain.
Copyright for the life of the author actually does the opposite for certain cases. If an author writes a hit such as Harry Potter, and has rights to it for life, their is no monetary incentive for that author to ever write again. It is not the governments responsibility to ensure that an author has a revenue stream it is instead the government’s job to promote the welfare of the general public by limiting the length of time that authors retain rights.
The original copyright term is probably good enough for most works 14 years with a single extension. Technical works that are non-fiction probably shouldn’t enjoy even that much protection.
Copyright as property is a misconception, an over-extension, what it is is a licensed protection for works made public, a license granted for the public good, in order to protect authors and reward them for their efforts mainly so they will continue to contribute.
Traditionally a generation is thought of as 25 years and a life time as 75 or so years. Of course people die earlier and live longer than that.
The orphan problem, really for authors who die early can be easily fixed by a simple extension. 14-15 years after death when it exceeds 75 Years, 75 years from birth plus 14-15 years calculated from the birth of the author.
Copyright of 14-15 years for commissioned works where the author concedes copyright, is fair, and so for a particular edition.
Translators are another matter much neglected. I rank good translators rather highly, and ebooks change a good number of things – one of which is per item sold disbursement to those that in effect create a particular work and the potential to pay copyright holders directly with each purchase.
Percentages, publisher’s price, and a sensible system of copyright recognition (mutual rather than legislative), may do little for established publishers, authors, translators, copyists, illustrators, editors. But ebooks also produce new conditions which allow for many more publishers etc.,.
Here we could quite separately create a voluntary code for sensible copyright, payment etc., that protect the interests of all. The key is the untapped potential of publishing outside the realms of existing paper publishers.
PS very soon now Amazon.com will be launching a true micro payment system (down to 0.0025 of a cent with a 20% transaction tax – caveat 0.0025 is the smallest fee so 0.005 of a cent is really the smallest practical amount).
Steve and Greg: I’m all for the concept of limited terms, and I certainly consider copyrights to be different from, say, real estate. I hate the idea of eternal copyright. But I see nothing evil about the possibility of just one work being able to support the author for life and leaving something for his/her surviving spouse and children. Call it a lottery—the odds are horrible. But, yes, the possibility does play a partial role in motivating authors, including the the literary variety. Keep in mind, too, that lifespans are longer than in, say, the 18th century. The challenge is to avoid creating what’s been called a copyright gentry. On that I’d entirely agree with you. Happy holidays. David