Alaric and Co:
For those for whom living by their writing is a possibility copyright is
good. Lawrance against the pirates of _Lady Chatterly's_. What about Pound's
Bel Espirit idea: that Eliot needed to be freed from his bank slog?
Admittedly Pound had in mind the opposite of living by writing, but the
principle was the same as behind the copyright law: that an artist should be
able, if they wish, to live by doing what they were created to do (as Pound
would put it): produce art.
There is the famous example of Milton's granddaughter, was it, in 18 C who
was so poor when _Paradise Lost_ was selling like hot stakes. Though where
does one stop? The John Clare situation shows where the principle that you
can pass copyright on can lead to. Perhaps copyright should expire as soon
as an author, or her/his spouse, dies. Better perhaps that the children have
less money than the intellectual life of a generation atrophies (to recall
what Pound said to the editor of _Poetry_ when she thought of closing it
down to nurse her sick sister).
It always amuses me to see the assiduous Copyright (C) at the end of very
small press - stapled, sale-or-return - pamphelts: as if anyone is going to
pinch their poems... though maybe Prynne's move to Bloodaxe shows that "one
day" the big fish will be eager, maybe, just maybe.
Isn't this worry pre-Internet? Any of us could put all of our poems on a web
site, for everyone to read, copyright-oblivious. Producing "readers, not
consumers/clients/purchasers". This also solves the problem of distribution,
as people (including some who turn out to be interested) are likely to
stumble on your site, and others to get there by searching for your name if
they remember seeing it under a poem they liked.
Best,
James
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|