The copyright to Barrie's Peter Pan stories is about to run out. In response, the hospital which now owns the copyright is seeking an author to write an "official sequel" using the characters and setting to extend the copyright, where possible.
Is EVERYONE involved in copyright law a complete slimebucket?
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
In a word, yes.
I guess I should say something more. I understand the reasoning behind copyrights but the original intent has been perverted to the point where copyrights can be extended almost in perpetuity. I firmly believe that 10 to 15 years is more than enough time for artists to profit from their efforts. But I fear that big business will not relinquish their stranglehold easily. I should as soon hold my breath as wait for any sanity in copyright law.
[ August 23, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
yes
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Eh, it wouldn't work all that well. Pretty much anything that could be considered an adaptation or solely based on the original books would be cool.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Ugh. I am reading the "sequel" to Rebecca right now. it is horrid, and must be put down. It was lying around my parents' house, and I could not resist. Do you think the writer did the same thing as in this Peter Pan case? It would just be one more reason to put it down.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
punwit, I'm all for blaming big business for stuff, but this one can actually be blamed on several European nations and the Berne Convention. In much of Europe copyright as we know it didn't really exist, rather, they had what they called "author's rights." Author's rights are based on the idea that a written work is property that should be rightfully owned by the author, whereas American copyright is based more in pragmatism, that is, that copyright exists to give writers an incentive to write. According to Paul Goldstein, America entered the Berne Convention and shifted towards author's rights largely so that the other Berne Convention nations would respect our copyrights.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So how come authors aren't making the big bucks???
The only reason that the copyright laws were extended was for the benefit of big corporations.
[ August 23, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Berecles (Member # 5740) on :
An article in the September Writer's Digest reveals that Stephen King co-band members Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson have authored a 'prequel' to Peter Pan. It hits bookshelves on Sept. 14th. Disney is already talking a movie, merchandising and at least two more books!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*snort*
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
Isn't the big bucks what it's all about?! Makes me wish dead authors could rise from the grave!
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:An article in the September Writer's Digest reveals that Stephen King co-band members Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson have authored a 'prequel' to Peter Pan.
Hmmm, Ridley? I might just have to check this out!
Goody
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dave Barry writing Peter Pan stories?
"Come with me to Neverland?"
"How shall we get there?"
"We can fly!"
"Fly?"
"I am not making this up."
Dagonee
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Is it bad that when I read the title of this thread I thought it was about the guy that dresses up like Peter Pan?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While the Berne convention certainly affected copyright law in the US, the most egregious problem is pretty much squarely on the shoulders of big business: absured extensions of length.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
length = size, and size doesn't matter, it's how you use it.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
quote: Is it bad that when I read the title of this thread I thought it was about the guy that dresses up like Peter Pan?
Seconded.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
I'm really going to have to break someone's legs for this . . .
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
fugu, I would agree that big business probably had a lot to do with it, but don't you think that it's significant that copyright durations didn't become absurdly long until the 1976 revision to the Copyright Act, and that that revision brought US copyright durations exactly in line with the 1971 revision of the Berne Convention?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is significant -- but guess who was behind the movement to that revision of the Berne Convention, and most of the particularly nasty stuff before and after .
Now, some iipa/big business motivations and actions have been reasonable. Many have not. Also, note that the compliance with certain other aspects of the Berne Convention (creator of a copyrighted work has a moral right for his name to be displayed as the creator that persists past the transference of any financial rights, for instance) are not exactly practiced fervently by members of the iipa and their associates.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I think you're making good points but, first, the IIPA didn't even exist until 1984. That's largely a quibble, since obviously businesses still lobbied before the creation of this organization. But here's the thing I'm talking about:
quote:eight copyright industry associations representing over 1,500 U.S. companies united in a coalition called the “International Intellectual Property Alliance” for the purpose of improving copyright laws and fighting massive piracy of U.S. copyrighted products. [Emphasis mine]
Now, I understand the "massive piracy" as referring to copyright infringements occurring outside the US, where it couldn't be prosecuted under existing laws. We did have the UCC, but I'm reasonably sure that UCC membership was never as extensive as Berne Convention membership. This is the kind of economic pressure I was talking about: Berne Convention nations pirate US copyrighted products, forcing the publishing companies here to pressure our government to comply with Berne Convention rules. So, yes, we can blame it on big business, but it seems to me that the root cause is still exterior to the US.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But that's a completely different causality than the first kind you were arguing, where it was that we were trying to pulll ourselves in line with international law so we're complying. This second kind of causality is where we're trying to pull everyone else's enforcement into line with our ideas of legality, which is practically the exact opposite.
As for the IIPA, note that their website nicely tracks initiatives from before their founding, and that I never said it was only them .
Anything as international (or perhaps a-national) as rights of creation is going to have many huge pressures on it, some of which are going to be international. Its not possible to express single causes. Attempting to lay single blame is fool-hardy, my thesis is merely that big business is an integral part of the causality of lengthier terms -- that is, if big business had not pushed for it, it would not have happened.
Now, big business did have several reasons for pushing for such terms itself, but we are all already familiar with the fallacy of the first cause, I presume .
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Um, this is what I said in my first post:
quote:America entered the Berne Convention and shifted towards author's rights largely so that the other Berne Convention nations would respect our copyrights.
I fail to see how that is substantively different from what I said in my most recent post:
quote:Berne Convention nations pirate US copyrighted products, forcing the publishing companies here to pressure our government to comply with Berne Convention rules.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Doh, I misremembered your statement earlier. Sorry.
Though I'm not at all certain that adherence to the Berne convention re: length was necessary for our copyrights to be respected; witness the success in enforcement on that list even before the berne convention compliance happened.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.