Chris -- Throughout the ostensible arguments you put forth (below), you're
failing to take on board the implications of this fact: Copyright law was
developed to protect the artist AND THE PUBLISHER/PRODUCER.
The original motivation of the legislators back in Queen Anne's time was that
it was good for a nation and its citizens to have books available to read.
They had in mind supporting both "the cultivation o0f the arts" and the
dissemination of knowledge through non-fiction.
Scribblers could write all they wanted, but, to fulfill Anne's legislators'
aims, PUBLICATION was required. The publishers were businessmen. The books had
to be made available. The businessmen weren't -- and aren't today -- prepared
to invest money in the production of books if there is no possibility of a
return on their investment because the content of the book can be stolen
tomorrow
by pirates.
Granted, contrary to Samuel Johnson's remark ("No man but a blockhead ever
wrote except for money."), many lonely scribblers wrote solely because they
wanted to write. Emily Dickinson may have wanted publication, but despite
pessimism about that possibility she wrote 1,800 poems. Similarly, Jane Austen
wrote
for years without making any money from it.
But (to inject a philosophic note) the "Incompleteness" of language
allows/prompts various speakers to use the same word while they harbor various
notions
behind the word. Your use of 'career' is a case in point. You seem to feel
that scribbling, all by itself, should be called a "career". I don't. Consider
a thinker who wrote philosophy tracts for decades but who never had them
published, and never taught. I'd feel silly talking about his "career" as a
philosopher. Similarly, I know of a woman who taught school in backwoods
Kentucky.
She wrote novels throughout her life. None was ever published. I myself would
not say she had a career as a novelist.
When you say about literature (within which I'll include playwriting), "
there is no cost in the original production -- other than time," you have it
dead
wrong, because when you wrote that line you were thinking only about the
artist, and not about the publisher/producer. There is a great deal of cost in
production. The funding of those costs, the investment, has to have copyright
protection, or very little such investment will ever be made.
Alas, I think your final remark is a dismaying non-sequitur:
"You can ask "how many possibly useful/desirable works were NOT being
written and published" before copyright became law --- but I can ask how
much
good literature has been lost because writers abused their talents to better
exploit a popular market.
And nobody can answer either question."
And I can ask how many books have gone unwritten because who knows how many
children who died under the age of ten might have grown up to write worthy
things? What's the relevance of that to the usefulness of copyright protection?
Chris's posting:
Regarding copyright and reproduction: copyright is not necessary "to recover
their money on the original production" in the following situations:
*anything done on commission (architecture,sculpture,musical composition etc)
*concerts, plays, operas, circuses (or -- at least most of them - excluding
the big hit musicals, I suppose, where licensing seems to be such a cash cow)
*literature (because there is no cost in the original production -- other
than
time -- and today, with the internet, there is even no cost to publication)
I realize that copyright was essential to your career as a publisher -- as it
has been to mine as record dealer -- but I question its importance regarding
the cultivation of the arts. (where "cultivation" involves both sufficient
financial support and achieving standards of quality)
Regarding Jane Austen, it seems to me that the publication of her work had
little financial impact on her life until 1813 ( 3 years before she died)
It
was a result, but not a necessary condition for her literary career.
You can ask "how many possibly useful/desirable works were NOT being
written
and published" before copyright became law --- but I can ask how much
good
literature has been lost because writers abused their talents to better
exploit a popular market.
And nobody can answer either question.
**************
You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars
updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone.
(http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
