Simon:
I have less problem with people liking a piece of mine so much they wanted
to publish it under their own name than the problem I would have if people
(whose work I didn't like) decided to publish their work under my name. (Of
course, if you LIKE the work then that can be different - I think some of
you on this list have played with that a bit - publishing books under each
others names?)
>For those for whom living by their writing is a possibility copyright is
>good.
Is this true? Possibly for those seeking global dominance within the
market. What distribution systems would we have if we did not have
copyright/agents/publishers? Is there a difference between Copyright Law
and the 'moral'/'ethical' naming of the authorship of texts. Many people,
including myself, have been using forms of quotation/plundering/collage for
decades - aren't most forms of writing thefts/homages/genre-structures
created by others? - where does the right to copy (legally/ethically) start
and stop?
>Isn't this worry pre-Internet?
This is why I raise the topic now and then in different arenas. It seems to
me that there are too many people who are not reconsidering copyright in
the light of the new technology, people who see copyright as a fixed good,
uncontestable. Each time I raise it, I am confronted with incomprehension -
'you write and you think there are problems with copyright?'. Yet things
are in the process of change - new ways of thinking about what relationship
a person has to the texts they percolate may suggest better ways to write
and live, better ways to relish the work.
Further reading
Temporary Autonomous Zones, Hakim Bey (anticopyright)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|