Stealing food from the mouths of creators' superannuated heirs
Spider Robinson sneers at Lawrence Lessig and casts any opponents to the Sonny Bono Act, which extended copyrights to 70 years beyond a creator's death, as thieves.
So when I do snuff it, I'd like to leave [my books], and any money they may fetch (the wee percentage the publishers, producers and taxmen won't keep) to my daughter Terri — just like any other craftsman would. I don't think that's an outrageous, capitalist-pig desire: It's a large part of why the stories exist in the first place.
Terri's 28. If I hand in my lunch pail tomorrow, she'll hold U.S. copyright on my works until she's 98. Again, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Life span is increasing. Her great-grandfather died last year at 100. I recently heard an eminent expert — Dr. Phil — say if you are alive in the year 2010, your life expectancy will be 125. If that's true, and I croak later today, Terri will be S.O.L. for the last quarter-century of her life, helpless to prevent slipshod pirate editions, bogus spinoffs or Hollywood rip-offs of her dad's legacy.
So I'm fine with the Sonny Rollins . . . the furshlugginer Sonny Bono Act; I wouldn't mind extending it further.
All this despite recollecting that he wrote a story called "Melancholy Elephants" which was extremely explicit in its point that indefinite copyright is a bad thing for the human race at large (and is currently available for free on-line, both ironies which he notes.)
Many other blogs have discussed the virtues of an intellectual commons, and I won't go into them here. I will, though, note that Spider Robinson is no Walt Disney or Robert Heinlein (examples he discussed) and I doubt his royalties are going to be making a difference to his daughter's bottom line 50 years from now, let alone 70. (I haven't been able to touch his stuff since the conclusion of Callahan's Lady in which our purported heroes cripple the villain and then stand around slapping each other on the backs and gloating about how he was sure to be raped in prison now that he was defenseless.)
In general I think that the Copyright Extension Act was a bad idea that benefits no one except the media conglomerates. Spider Robinson, well, I regard his work as enjoyable fluff these days. But what raises my eyebrow is Robinson's use of the "supporting my child in her old age" argument. What, he doesn't trust his daughter, whom he helped to raise, to be resourceful enough to provide for herself?
P.S. Hiya Zed!
Posted by Jimcat on January 28 2003 13:07
Agree with the feline dude: The notion that copyright is designed primarily for the protection of artists has nothing to do with the actual economics of the infotainment business, where it's big distributors who enjoy monopoly rates on the reproduction of recorded performances.
Posted by iggy-colin on February 2 2003 04:11
I can see where people want to get recognized for their work and not be ripped off, having copyrights gives you a little slice of immortality that everyone wishes they had.
Posted by Kaci on March 24 2003 05:39
However I agree that a piece of work is not going to stay the same forever (just look at the bible) but when it does get ripped off or changed they'll give you recognition and thanks.
Posted by Kaci on March 24 2003 05:49