And if, for argument's sake, it did, could this have some impact on the future ability of the Western nations to care for their old people? Which, guys, is us.
Well, as a thirty-something, I'm praying that social security and pensions are enough to get my parents and in-laws through retirement/old age without leaning too much on us;* and pretty much convinced we (husband and I) will be getting absolutely no help from the gov't in our old age.
*personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes to see this happen.
term of life+90 (1998).
Oops, that should be life+70, right?
the concept of ownership of ideas has been kicking around well before Disney, in fact before industrialization, and I don't think it's right to ascribe the words "intellectual property" to some sort of plot by big corporations. It trivializes ideas that aren't new
But corporations and their influence have vastly changed the term of "ownership." From a term of 14 years for copyright, to a term of 28/renewable+28 (mid-century), to a term of life+50 (1970s) to a term of life+90 (1998).
Rob:
Actually, ownership of the work allows Disney to manipulate its availability. Think of the infamous Disney Vault...
Yeah, Disney is well-known for doing that. I didn't get off on that tangent because I don't think that Disney's ever let it get to the extreme I was thinking about: when a work is truly unavailable and at risk of remaining forever unavailable.
Disney could chose to do that with one of its works, but I don't think we're (culturally) at much risk of losing much Disney ;)
Do people write American President fan-fiction?
And no, I'm not googling for it.
I'm quite sure that you could find Bush/Cheney slash.
I know you could find Kerry/Edwards slash. Why? Because it was ALL OVER the blogshere last election.
Or, more to the point, if I buy a Ford F-150 and paint it bright purple with "Girlchaser" on the front and add blinking headlights and a speaker system that can crack masonry, I doubt many people would confuse it with Ford's original product. They would likely see me and think "What an idiot." Or they might think, "Hey, I wonder what I could do with my truck..."
And part of the argument I see being argued here is that people believe that FORD should have the right to stop you from painting it bright purple with "Girlchaser," etc, because other people might think "Hey, I wonder what I could do with my truck . . . "
(But then we get into the mess of rights over "real" hard property versus rights over ephemeral and intellectual property, and everything falls apart once again.)
BSD, are you talking to me? Bittorrent, baby.
Mind you, if they'd just put it on iTMS, I'd gladly shell out.
You know, I'm glad there's finally some media owners realizing this. I don't do P2P. I'VE never done P2P. The husband downloaded a TV show over P2P once, after the third airing of something we wanted to see got moved without warning again (thus thwarting our VCR), and we were ready to go ballistic. If that show had been available in a widely useable format for a decent price (personally, I think that $1.99 is low, but $9.99 is too high), we'd have purchased it rather than take the (very limited) risk of the P2P download.
take a look at the rare book world to see what's already happening with post-1926 works
Something I thought of after the fact: also look at the economics of the rare book world, and the fact that while prices on these copies may be extraordinarily high (one of my friends gave up looking for copies of books by a favorite childhood author when poor condition paperback-type editions starting fetching $800+; unfortunately I cannot remember the author's name because I'd never read her/heard of her) the author or the author's heirs are not benefiting from this market. So, the works are in the process of dying (losing what little audience they have left), yet the market's in the process of a price explosion, and the people who are profitting are those that are packrats or have extremely good luck at yard sales.
Thinking about the public domain has brought up another issue for me. Above, I mentioned authors or estates that are fulling their original bargin by releasing work to the public domain. I believe that is occuring--specifically at/by the request of Project Gutenburg--because some post-1926 "classics" have begun showing up in their archives with oddish disclaimers on them.
I'm not, right now, a published fiction writer. I am a published essayist. And I am also "published," to the degree a blogger and fan fiction writer can be published. And I am someone that does believe that by creating and "publishing," I have entered an agreement with the public good that's embodied in copyright. But I am distressed by the lengths that agreement has been taken to in recent years (I'd prefer a 40-year copyright term).
My current method of dealing with that distress is that my casual writing is explicitly released to the public domain upon publication. (I'm sure that someone out there is now considering the legal ramifications of placing "this work is released to the public domain" on a piece of fan fiction--legally, from what I've researched and the advice I've been given by IP lawyers and professors, that the statement applies specifically to the situations I have placed down on paper, and the exact words I have used to describe those situations. So while I am releasing my exact representation to the public domain, it does not affect anything else within that work.) For my more commercial work, I was considering a blanket release to the public domain to be placed in my will. But in a conversation on MK a couple of weeks or months ago, Jo Walton mentioned that, at least in the UK (I think?) that cannot be done, because it ends up in the estate losing value on your death. Has anyone else considered this issue in the US?
(Yeah, I know, I need to go talk to a probate attorney and an IP attorney. I'm just not sure I have enough commerical work that I own the copyright on--too much work for hire--to make it worthwhile right now.)
And how would most people feel if they were told that their family farm or business or house would--after 20 or 50 years--suddenly be taken from them and given to whatever squatters wanted them? My books ARE my family farm. I work/toil there daily. I want to leave it to my children who can then decide to work it, rent it out, or sell it entire.
Jane: what you're proposing here is the death of the concept of public domain. Which is already occuring under current copyright law--the public domain has essentially been "frozen" by recent copyright extensions.
What I think will actually occur going forward, should this continue, is that this will result in the death of PRO fiction entering the public domain, and the concept of the public domain will change. It will become more of a quasi-legal entity than the legal entity it has been. It will be a mish-mash of work released by authors/estates who feel that they are filling the end of the bargin they entered into when they originally obtained copyright, and of work that cannot be attributed or traced to a owner. Ironically, fan fiction may play a large part in that. Authors of derivative works (here, fan fiction) DO have copyright in those derivative works (the original copyright holder may sue them for damages, but cannot claim or use those derivative works without permission). But many authors of fan fiction do not always have interest in that copyright, or in using the "protections" offered by copyright. They're content to let their fan fiction float around cyberspace, allowing others to find and find pleasure in it for free.
And you may think that the death of the public domain for pro fiction is a "good" thing. It's possibly a good thing for a very limited amount of pro fiction. If the heirs of Jane Austen still had her copyright, they'd be f*ckin' rich. Or maybe, high school students around the US and UK wouldn't be 'forced' to read her work on a yearly basis. We don't know what the result of the never-ending copyright would be, because it's not existed before.
I suspect that for a limited number of works, especially those with strong commercial backing (Disney!) never-ending copyright would mean that the works would remain forever available, and forever commercial. For your standard novel, take a look at the rare book world to see what's already happening with post-1926 works. There are novels with limited numbers of fans, novels that no publishing company has seen the demand to reprint, or that publishing companies have been prevented from reprinting (you know, by the heir that refuses to allow republication unless the company ALSO publishes their horribly written sequal--which PNH can speak on), that are dying. The fans aren't looking for a first edition or even an edition in "good condition"--they're looking for ANY edition, in ANY condition, as long as it's readable. And the community continues to decrease in size, as those who were only half-heartedly invested in that author or that novel decide it's not worth the effort. I believe this is going to be the more common outcome of never-ending copyright for non-highly-commercialized works: the work will die. And more quickly than I suspect people are willing to admit.
but the low gravity means you can do a lot of cool fun things you can't do on Earth, so a lot of people don't see the point in moving on
Or maybe, you've been to Earth, looked around, and decided that it wasn't your thing.
I know people in the fan fiction world who HAVE been published, with their own original fiction, in their own original worlds, and have decided to return to fan fiction. Because the fiction publishing world doesn't fulfil what they're looking for. That's not saying that either is better or worse than the other, but that different people want different things out of and for their creation.
Re: vegetarian diets
I'm always bewildered by those who must analyze another's diet and pass judgement. When it comes to food, I listen to my body. Sometimes, it says NO MEAT!!! and doesn't want it for weeks at a time. This was most extreme during weeks 8-16 of pregnancy: my body didn't just have no interest in meat, but I threw up foods that even just contained meat juices/flavoring. Luckily, it was quite happy with vegetarian sources of protein and I shifted to those until the revulsion passed (well, it still hasn't completely passed, although I've had some meat longings in the past two weeks). Though I had to ignore those all around me who were perfectly horrified that a pregnant woman would chose to give up meat.
When throwing larger parties, I always try to have a protein-heavy vegetarian dish prepared without any immediate cross-contamination (I don't have a separate set of knives/cutting boards/pots, but everything used to prepare the dish is well-washed beforehand and the preparation takes place in a separate area of the kitchen than any meat prep). Most meat-eaters will eat a vegetarian dish as a side dish without a complaint (or notice), and most vegetarians are happy that there's something that they can eat as a main dish. I just try to keep the dish carefully separated from any meat dishes so that spoons, etc don't accidently get used for both types.
US $8-10 for two dozen doses would be a lot better than what we're paying for it ;)
Unfortunately, I can't use it this year (springtime, aka NOW allergies, preggers,* and Allegra's a class 3) and the hubby usually gets enough sample-wise off his doctor to get him through his allergy season.
* Yeah, I know that Benadryl is also not recommended when preggers, but it's a class 2 and my OB approves of it at the limited dosage levels I tend to take: either 1 half-dose or 2 half-doses in 24 hours.
Benadryl is contraindicated for patients with asthma. For them, I'd suggest checking out Chlor-Trimaton.
---------
Yeah, I know that Benadryl doesn't work for some--my sister is actually apparently allergic *to* Benadryl (fortunately, discovered while she was at a hospital). Although I didn't know about asthma and Benadryl; I wonder if any doctor has ever told my mother. She still uses it and has minor asthma.
I' m still a little surprised that Claritin was allowed to go OTC: I know too many people who have major reactions to it. Including me and the hubby. For me, it's like what people describe when they're on speed: I cannot sleep for days on end and almost ended up in the hospital. I was fairly delusional the last day (of four) that I took it. The hubby's not as bad sleep-wise: when using Claritin, he was getting about two hours of sleep a night. Our doctors were not surprised by these reactions--mine told me that it seems that about 1 out of 5 of her patients have a sleep-interferring reaction.
We both do okay on Allegra, although it's now 'covered' at $50/month. Luckily neither of us needs it year-round.
And, really, I've gone back to Benadryl. Half an adult dose gives me about six hours of relief (from pretty bad allergy headaches and head stuffiness), and I can handle the drowiness of half a dose as long as I've had a full night's sleep.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 16 |
Total: 16 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by hp:
Show all comments by hp.