On 11/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 09:12:43PM -0800, Stewart Stremler wrote:
> > I think his point was that most of this creativity occurs *despite*
> > copyright.
>
> But how much of it is worthwhile?
Homer, Shakespeare, Chaucer.
Homer went around reciting his epics from memory, in person.
Shakespeare was paid by a specific patron or theater to have a play
written and performed, by that acting company or for that theater.
Chaucer had to earn a living as a civil servant (auditing the export
taxes and such), and a number of the surviving records of his life are
demands from creditors.
The first two of these authors had mechanisms of earning a living from
their work, and if the value they offered could have been easily
duplicated and passed around, it would have significantly damaged
their ability to earn a living as creative people.
That leaves Chaucer, who was able to write beautiful poetry even
though he had to have his "day job" and run short of funds at times.
Modern-day authors might be flattered at the comparison to Chaucer,
but I don't think they would thank you for consigning them to Accounts
Receivable II (Hourly) $14.32 while they write by night and hope that
SDG&E leaves the power on another week till payday.
But he ne coude arriven in no coost
Wher as he mighte finde in this matere
Two creatures according in fere.
--Rachel
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
