Re: Harry Potter mini series
- From: Louis Epstein <le@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:12:34 +0000 (UTC)
Yellow <yell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: In article <paji16hdaspj7vbqbldfr06c0pemt1p8sq@xxxxxxx>,
: welshdog@xxxxxxxxx says...
:> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:28:43 +0100, Yellow <yell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:> >In article <40rd16948o0ck9ck1fngeah2glqvk146q7@xxxxxxx>,
:> >jrau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
:> >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:06:01 +0100, Yellow <yell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:> >> wrote:
:> >> >> Sorry, Welshdog, but I strongly disagree. I'm a writer, and I would
:> >> >> prefer that my descendants continue to profit (through copyright of
:> >> >> the IP that I create now) for decades after I die.
:> >> >
:> >> >That just causes stagnation.
:> >> Granted, it may cause stagnation, but should my descendants suffer
:> >> some future economic hardship, its better than starvation.
:> >> James Rau
:> >I have no problem with shares of profits for creative works being part
:> >of the estate of the creator.
:> >The problem I do have is with reference to ideas being protected beyond
:> >a certain time. When I use the word "ideas" I am being a wee bit
:> >simplistic as I want to keep this short but I am using it to mean
:> >innovations and inventions in the form of works of art, the written
:> >word, designs and creations for example.
:> >Successful "ideas" should be sufficiently protected to allow the creator
:> >to recoup their financial outlay and make a nice profit which should
:> >include the ability to fund future ideas. Don't forget, every item you
:> >use and every drug you take and every convenience of the modern world
:> >came from a creative idea.
:> >And why do I think art should be treated the same way as design? Because
:> >to do otherwise creates the two tier society we currently have - those
:> >who are paid by the hour for their ideas and those who perhaps have just
:> >a single idea in their entire life and expect to live off it for their
:> >life time plus 70 years, arguing for longer.
:> Then there are situations such as with Tolkien who expressly stated he
:> wanted his work to become a 'new mythology' and expected it to be used
:> as the basis for further work.
:> Instead it has become sewn up tight by copyright such that his
:> characters and the world of Middle-Earth is more or less unusable to
:> writers unless they pay royalties to his estate!
:> I can understand Chris Tolkien wanting to make a living from the works
:> as his input to the original was extensive... but once *he* has gone
:> surely it ought to be opened up for 'exploitation the way his father
: I don't know much about Tolkien - loved the films but never could take
: to the books.
I love the books and am deeply offended by the very IDEA of their being
: I even struggled getting through The Hobbit and only read
: that in the end so as to play a computer game that was popular in the
: But yes, protection beyond lifetimes is certainly a no-no in my opinion.
I see corporate character type rights as being necessarily finite,
but the rights of authors to forbid explicitly contrary works using
their creations should be inheritable.
If you want a "different interpretation" USE ORIGINAL NAMES AT THE VERY
LEAST.Don't take what a known person stated flat out with characters
that author came up with and feel entitled to contradict it in something
of your own.There are enough folktales of unknown origin to be
"reinterpretive" with...let original works stand "fair and square
without contradictions",as Tolkien put it.
"Pay by the hour" work-for-hire on something you DIDN'T create doesn't
deserve the same protection as a creator's imagination.
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
- Re: Harry Potter mini series
- From: Yellow
- Re: Harry Potter mini series
- Prev by Date: Re: Harry Potter mini series
- Next by Date: Credits (HBP on HBO)
- Previous by thread: Re: Harry Potter mini series
- Next by thread: Re: Harry Potter mini series