tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post113273971145898019..comments2024-03-27T07:25:07.401+00:00Comments on Grumpy Old Bookman: Kembrew McLeod: Freedom of ExpressionMichael Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11338398159818400930noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1136372402728979622006-01-04T11:00:00.000+00:002006-01-04T11:00:00.000+00:00I do not want my poems to be available on the inte...I do not want my poems to be available on the internet for the following reason: I need to earn a living, and royalties from the sale of my books are an important component of my income. If anyone who wants to read a poem can find it on the internet, and print it out, there is no need for them to buy the book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1133155708419283532005-11-28T05:28:00.000+00:002005-11-28T05:28:00.000+00:00Excellent ,as your writing always is. I read and v...Excellent ,as your writing always is. I read and value your opinions every day.<BR/>Now I've finished sucking up. You can find free short stories and poetry on my blog StreetSweeper. Another 5 readers and I'll be one happy puppy.Kritihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001806886621335963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1133141821634090642005-11-28T01:37:00.000+00:002005-11-28T01:37:00.000+00:00Look, it's late and I want to go to bed. But, with...Look, it's late and I want to go to bed. But, with reference to the lengthy comment I've just made, I now find that I may have been wrong to say that I was free to give a link to <I>Bloody Men</I> by Wendy Cope.<BR/><BR/>I have just discovered that it can be a violation of copyright <I>even to post a link to a web page</I>. There is already a huge online literature on the topic. But if you value your sanity, you won't read it. Just trust me, and <I>don't read it</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1133140125087915882005-11-28T01:08:00.000+00:002005-11-28T01:08:00.000+00:00This is serious stuff, with implications which, as...This is serious stuff, with implications which, as Kembrew McLeod makes clear, go far beyond the appropriation of intellectual property by a few greedy Philistines. However, I shall restrict myself to commenting on one feature of copyright law as it affects literature today.<BR/><BR/>It is only right that an author should retain full creative control over her work, and that only those authorised by her should be entitled to profit from it. (Whether copyright protection should outlive her, and if so by how long, is another matter.)<BR/><BR/>But it is a nonsense that the law should prevent me from reproducing here, say, Wendy Cope's <I>Bloody Men</I>. Believe me, please, when I tell you that, if I were to quote even one verse from this work (one line would probably be safe), the GOB might, depending on how zealous Ms Cope is in defence of her copyright, be in trouble. The theory is that unauthorised persons should not be allowed to profit from work which is not theirs. But is it remotely conceivable that anyone would buy, say, a novel, simply because it quotes Ms Cope’s poem? If you want to read the work of Wendy Cope, for God’s sake, you go out and buy an edition of her poetry.<BR/><BR/>A law so restrictive is positively detrimental to the interests of the writer supposedly protected by it: Wendy Cope could only benefit from the exposure she would get from the free quotation of her work. (And please don’t go on about how a writer might object to being quoted out of context, or disapprovingly: any publicity is better than none.)<BR/> <BR/>But it’s not all D&G. You can’t quote Wendy Cope, but you are entirely free to quote at any length you like from <A HREF="http://www.blackfountain.co.uk" REL="nofollow"> this website</A> – which contains more than 100,000 words. (Trust me. Just trust me.) But of course, you wouldn’t want to quote from it, because nothing on it has been written by anyone you’ve ever heard of. The problem is this: unknowns would kill to be quoted, but as soon as a writer becomes famous (i.e. as soon as he becomes quotable) it becomes dangerous to quote him.<BR/><BR/>In so far as copyright law prevents one writer from freely quoting the work of another, it brings about self-censorship, which comes perilously close to being an infringement of freedom of speech. I resist the urge to quote Wendy Cope, because I know that I could be in trouble if I did. This is a thoroughly bad thing all round.<BR/><BR/>So how does such an idiotic law survive? Well, it thrives on egotism, stupidity and greed. Some writers are touchy enough to resent the use of their words by anyone else; some are daft enough to believe that those who quote them are in some sense stealing from them; some (egged on by salivating lawyers) are grasping enough to want money wherever they can get it.<BR/><BR/>The law of copyright was originally intended to prevent outright piracy of a writer’s work, and is still necessary to prevent the undeserving from making money from someone else’s efforts. But it now goes far beyond this, and needs to be reined in.<BR/><BR/>The good news is that the Web is already destroying the worst excesses of copyright law simply because it is too huge and anarchic to be controlled, even by giant corporations. I have explained that I would not be entitled to quote Wendy Cope's <I>Bloody Men</I> here, but I am quite free to give <A HREF="http://home.egge.net/~savory/cope.htm" REL="nofollow"> this link</A>, which effectively does the same thing.<BR/><BR/>But let me conclude by throwing down a gauntlet. This blog is widely read by the publishing community, who characteristically defend copyright law as Davy Crockett defended the Alamo. So come on, you bastards, defend it . . . Hello? . . . Hello?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1132876521217443022005-11-24T23:55:00.000+00:002005-11-24T23:55:00.000+00:00Re: Cory Doctorow and others who make their books ...Re: Cory Doctorow and others who make their books available for free downloads. They do it because it increases name recognition without impacting the sales of the books they don't give away. Few if any readers would pay for an e-book by Doctorow or anyone else because e-books have so far been a big, fat, flop.<BR/><BR/>I have downloaded a number of free books online and have noticed an interesting phenomenon that I don't believe is unique to myself. I am more excited by the idea of getting an entire book instantly than by the books contents. Once I open that PDF file, I read a few pages and lose interest. <BR/><BR/>Doctorow makes his money from his paper books that are published by TOR. If there was any money in e-books versions of his work, he wouldn't be giving them away, you can bet on that.Peter L. Winklerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16005846686173676213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1132847790509575192005-11-24T15:56:00.000+00:002005-11-24T15:56:00.000+00:00I agree totally. Half a dozen readers is the same...I agree totally. Half a dozen readers is the same target I set for myself.pundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08953515400835290781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6656468.post-1132843782538381902005-11-24T14:49:00.000+00:002005-11-24T14:49:00.000+00:00Valuable, succinct and brillant essay.Thank you.Valuable, succinct and brillant essay.<BR/>Thank you.Bernitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05264585685253812090noreply@blogger.com