NOOK’d (and some mini book reviews, and a discussion of copyright)
Someone I met in DC had a Nook and, in large part because of her urgings, I ended up buying a refurbished one from Woot.com for $99. It arrived last week (and my purdy purple case arrived today) so I figured I’d share my thoughts on the device itself, along with the books I’ve been reading.
I went with a Nook instead of Amazon’s kindle for a few reasons. First, the Nook allows you to take out books from participating libraries, including Chicago Public Libraries. Unfortunately, the book selection isn’t great – and Amazon has said “Kindle will do that too in the coming months! – so it’s not as big of a deal as it seemed when I bought the Nook, but whatever. Likewise, the Nook allows out-of-the-book loading of books purchased from Google Books, which will let me buy things through my local feminist bookstore’s online store front and support them. You can do the same with the Kindle, but it requires jumping through questionably legal hoops. Paula, the friend from DC, has a Nook, and she can lend me books through Barnes and Noble’s lending feature. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Nook was $99 at Woot, and I couldn’t find a Kindle that inexpensive. The biggest visible difference of the Nook versus the Kindle is that the former has a color touch screen along the bottom, while the latter has a bunch of physical buttons, and then the Nook uses Barnes and Noble to buy books while the Kindle uses Amazon.
So what do I think? Well, about a week in I’m loving the experience of reading on the Nook. E-ink is pretty awesome, and – for me, at least – suitably replicates the experience of actually looking at a physical page. It almost looks ‘fake,’ like it’s a demo unit at a store and not an actual piece of technology that has a display that clean and smooth. The page turning time – a brief flash while the next page loads – bugged me at first, but really isn’t any longer than physically turning a page in a book. I also like that you can turn pages with the buttons along the right or left side, or swipe along the touch screen in a really satisfying manner. (The touch screen, BTW, automatically turns off while reading so you’re not distracted by the menu.)
Lets use that as an opportunity to talk about the touch screen, though. I like the idea: E-ink doesn’t update instantaneously like LCD screens; there’s a visible refresh. So for navigating menus, it’s definitely nice to have something that responds the second you make a selection. Or would, if it were a better system. I’m not sure if it’s a hardware or software issue, but the touch screen response isn’t perfect. Not bad, but not quite as nice as – say – my Android phone. I’m pretty sure it’s just the sluggish hardware of the Nook, so I’ve learned to be patient, but it’s not as perfect as I was hoping.
As I said, I’m really enjoying the experience on the whole. But, I have yet to purchase a single e-book from Barnes and Noble or anywhere else. Barnes and Noble offers a bunch of free classics, which is nice, but I’ll also be honest enough to admit I reached into the darker corners of the Internet and found huge repositories of still-in-copyright e-books, free for the downloading. (I’ll briefly discuss my views on copyright infringement at the end of this post, but suffice it to say I sleep fine at night.) To manage my plethora of books, I’m using Calibre, a free e-book management software, sort of like iTunes but for e-books. It automatically works with the Nook (and Kindle, I think?) to transfer DRM-free files to and from the hardware.
Book management on the Nook is…OK. The Nook itself delineates B&N downloaded books from ‘sideloaded‘ books for some reason, but it’s not a big deal. You just need to remember if you loaded something manually, or downloaded it from B&N. The Nook’s recent software update allows for storing books on ‘shelves,’ but – alas – you need to do all management manually, on the questionable little touch screen. So if you’re sideloading, say, dozens and dozens of books (let alone hundreds or the 3,500 the Nook claims it can hold with its on-board memory) you’re kind of SOL. Hopefully the next update will fix this problem. Likewise, if you sort books by title, you can see how far into a book you are (“On page X of Y”) but if you sort by author, the same info doesn’t show up. I prefer sorting by author, but would also like to see the amount I’ve read, in case I leave a book and want to return.
I’ve also been loving the ability to download any of trans fiction or shitty fan fiction I find online, and read it in bed on something other than my backlit laptop or phone screen. It’s a really nice experience.
But why haven’t I purchased any e-books?
Well, I’m honestly not sure how soon that’ll happen. Calibre can – with some outside plugin support – remove any DRM from downloaded files, which is a big part of my problem. I’m hesitant to pay for something that can be revoked at a moment’s notice. And I also have issues with e-book pricing, as they’re often not that much cheaper than the physical book. If, say, buying the physical book provided free ebooks, I’d jump at the chance and probably up my book purchases significantly. But I’m hesitant to pay almost as much for something that feels much more ephemeral, even though I’ve acknowledging the reading experience is very pleasant.
So…I would recommend a Nook, but with hesitations. First, I’d make sure anyone not tech savy plays with it before use. The interface is fine, but not amazing. And I’d do research on book prices: is what you want available as an e-book? Are you comfortable – technologically and morally – downloading books illegally? Do you read enough online fiction for it to be attractive to load it to a portable device? And so on. If you’re in the same basic ballpark as me – you love reading, read lots on and offline, are comfortable downloading books, and so on – then go for it. I won’t be buying many e-books in the near future, but I’m pretty convinced the issue is (much like with digital music for many years) price and restrictions, not the concept itself. If, on the other hand, any type of book reading technology strikes you as a crime against literature, and/or you’re not comfortable with the tech end, then steer clear.
Some Mini Book Reviews
The awesome part of having downloaded a shit-ton of books is I have read more books in the last week than I usually do. Here are some very brief reviews:
The Boy in the Stiped Pyjamas – John Boyne
Read this book. This look at the Holocaust from the perspective of a 9 year old son of a Nazi soldier, is AMAZING! There’s no explicit descriptions of anything painful, because everything is seen through Bruno’s naive eyes. A hard book to read, definitely, but worth every page.
The Graveyard Book – Neil Gaiman
I love Gaiman. This young adult’s book, about a boy whose family is killed and ends up raised by ghosts in a graveyard, finished a little weak for me but was lots of fun and is worth reading.
Shit My Dad Says – Justin Halpern
Amusing. Not mind-blowing, but a good going-to-bed read, about ridiculous stuff Halpern’s dad says (just what it says on the title).
The Year of Living Biblically – A. J. Jacobs
The author, a secular agnostic Jew who I was predisposed to like, decides to spend a year following the rules in the Bible. All of them. His exploration – involving lots of self reflection, discussion with rabbis/priests/scholars, and facial hair, was really enjoyable. It gave my secular agnostic Jewish self things to think about in terms of what Biblical tenants are worth following, and why.
The Bedwetter: Stories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee – Sarah Silverman
I like Silverman, and this autobiography as lots of fun. I generally don’t think she’s consistently hilarious, and this book was not cover-to-cover amazing, but her humor makes it worth reading through.
The Scholarship – Julie O.
Trans fiction! Read on a delightful e-ink screen! While going to bed! Not as long as I was hoping (like so many good trans fiction pieces out there) but enjoyable none the less. About a high schooler who is forced-slash-chooses to go to school as a girl. I was skeptical of the premise, but everything turns out OK, and it’s pretty well written. Not a long read, but enjoyable nonetheless.
I Said I’d Talk About Copyright
Here’s my view. Copyright is not an inalienable right. Coming up with an idea does not, in and of itself, mean you get control over that idea. Copyright is a societal deal, a social contract, saying “We’re giving you control for X number of years. In exchange, when that time is up, we can do whatever the hell we want with your idea.” The deal is that we’ll give you control now, in exchange for a lack of control later. The alternative is that there’s no control, and sending an idea into the ether means that anyone can instantaneously do whatever the hell they want with it: repackage it, resell it, rewrite it, whatever.
As an artist and content creature, I’m in favor of this system, in theory. I think everyone wins from a good copyright system: content creatures get control over their material for long enough to make some money, and society will eventually get free reign over the material once it becomes part of a larger cultural experience.
Good examples: Most Disney animated movies come from out-of-copyright (public domain) stories, and the world is (mostly…) the better for it. The recent Jane Eyre movie could be made because the story was in the public domain.
Where things get hairy, though, is the definition of “eventually.” How long should copyright last? The Constitution originally said (if I remember correctly) 14 years, with the option to extend to 28. The current (U.S.) copyright length is the life of the author plus 70 years.
I’m of the opinion that’s bullshit. Disney et al were able to pillage the public domain, but don’t have to give anything back? That’s not fair! The whole purpose of copyright is to make a deal about control versus public access. I’m of the opinion that a ~25 year copyright still serves that purpose, while also guaranteeing that works will eventually make it back into the public domain. The content creator has 25 years to make money, society has the rest of eternity to benefit. (Imagine how poorer society would be without public domain music and stories! Everything from before 1923! If that was as strictly controlled as newly produced works, how sad!)
So, in my opinion, the publishers and distributors broke their end of the bargain. Copyright is supposed to be limited, but it’s now effectively unlimited Disney and others keep going back to congress to push copyright lengths further and further away, meaning we have to wait indefinite amounts of time for our cultural right to these works. So, if they’re gaming the system from the congressional end, I’m going to game the system from the digital end.
That’s why I feel minimal guilt about illegally downloading books/movies/music/etc. While I try to support smaller artists, or even larger artists who I feel a specific connection to, my attitude really boils down to “They (big media) aren’t holding up their end of the deal in respecting copyright as a limited right, so I’m not going to hold up my end of the deal by respecting copyright, either.”
So there.
Themocracy
I still like the recent New Yorker cartoon where the chap is standing in front of a lot of bookshelves, all empty except for an iPad on one.
A clarification, if I may: copyright doesn’t cover ideas. It covers the expression of ideas. Where it gets tricky is, as always, in the details. But that’s why we have courts.
If you want an intelligent discussion about copyright, you should read Mark Helprin’s “Digital Barbarism”. Not only is he a wonderful writer, but he makes some points that you might find are in absolute disagreement with your final thought.
I absolutely disagree with you, as well. You’re arguing your convenience matters more than someone’s intellectual effort; which clearly matters because you deem it worth obtaining by illicit means. Why should the playwright not be paid? Heck, some of those playwrights are quite wealthy, indeed! Would you work with a theater group that refused to pay a particular playwright because he or she was wealthy enough, already? That’s what you’re arguing, you know.
Anyway, I urge you to read Mr Helprin’s essay on the matter. Not only is it wonderful to read, you’ll see (because he does a far better job than I explaining) why your argument is morally wrong.
Carolyn Ann
No, that’s not what I’m arguing. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m arguing that – in the current reality of life-of-the-author-plus-seventy-years copyright lengths, and of major corporations continually extending copyright lengths even further – I have no moral qualms about obtaining works for free, in violation of their copyrights, to use those works in a non-commercial fashion. If copyrights were a sane length, I would absolutely have moral qualms with violating said copyright. (Likewise, please not the restriction I’m making: for non-commercial use. If someone is filming a movie in the theaters and selling it on the street, I don’t think that’s OK. Or even just lifting text from a website to repost it elsewhere, in its entirety and with no added value, just for the ad revenue.)
(Sidenote: “Sane length” is obviously objective, but in my opinion it’s somewhere in the realm of 20-50 years, period. Or, alternatively, 10 years with unlimited 5-year extensions, but each extension costing $5^N, where N is the times you’ve extended the copyright. So the first extension would cost $5 (5^1=5) but the 10th extension, 50 years later, would cost $9,765,265. If the work is that valuable to you to keep out of the public domain, pay up!)
Likewise, I constantly work with theater groups who are unable to pay for licensing rights. If they were going to put up a 12 week run with 5 shows a week and charge $50 tickets, I’d agree that’s unethical. For a one-weekend show of a high school theater class, I have no moral qualms about ignoring copyright law and performing excerpts from books the children actually care about, instead of scouring the public domain.
I’m not saying there aren’t folks out there who do agree with you: the convenience of copyright violation, in and of itself, is worth more than someone’s creative effort. But that’s not what I’m saying, and as someone who is a creative artist I’m absolutely practicing what I preach.
I strongly urge you to read Mark Helprin’s book, Rebecca.
You’ve added an interesting adjunct to the argument about copyright. Basically what you’re saying is that because you don’t agree with the period of copyright, you refuse to abide by it?
There are exceptions in copyright law for things like academic usages. The school play is unlikely to be infringing the law, and no one is (really) going to care. What I do care about is the instance when someone uses the work of another without recompense. I’ve seen it happen to some writer friends; one even had a dramatization of her work produced on the TV, and no one told her. I think you’d agree that’s a bit out of bounds?
But it’s when we start to redefine what is acceptable because of our own convenience that it gets tricky. You conflate two points and arrive at an argument of convenience! Basically, if you don’t agree with the copyright extension to 90 years, you should argue against it in a court, or to your representatives. Ignoring it and saying that what you’re doing is morally justified because it is too long is placing yourself in the position of judge and jury. Is that the something you want to justify?
Tell me the essential difference between your position and that of the person who downloads lots of music, justifying it because pop stars are so wealthy anyway they won’t miss his little non-contribution? Now multiply that college student by the number of people who do that, and suddenly you’re talking lots of money! Lots of money that doesn’t end up in the pockets of those who make and distribute the music.
Personally, I agree that the copyright period is far too long. I know Disney went to great lengths to ensure the extension became law. I also know the extension can withstand Constitutional scrutiny. What I don’t agree with is that because it is too long, you get to decide whether you respect it or not!
I really like your fee idea! Disney would probably hate it, though. Perhaps that’s the answer? America has, I think, the longest copyright period in the world. On the other hand, no one else has the large creative industries America has.
Taking some of your points out of order…
Yup! I didn’t (and don’t) think a drinking age of 21 is morally justifiable either, and I didn’t (and don’t) abide by that, either.
You keep using the word “convenience” when that’s not what I’m saying! If a law is immoral – which is what I’m arguing – I don’t believe I have a responsibility to follow it. I’m not arguing copyright length has the same moral weight as, say, race/gender/sexuality/etc discrimination, but I do believe it’s nevertheless a moral issue. Who can decide morality, except each of us in our own lives?
In terms of behavior? Probably not much, though I do try to financially support artists I really care about. But that disconnect between me and someone downloading purely out of convenience is honestly for them to deal with, not me. I’m comfortable with my own moral position, and am not really concerned with whether or not your hypothetical person is able to justify their copyright infringement.
It did, you’re right (Eldred v Ashcroft, I believe). But I’m past accepting the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what’s right and wrong. They get it right more often than they get it wrong, but they’ve had some major fuckups (both historically and recently, and I’d argue Eldred v Ashcroft is one such example). I think that decision – constant, indefinite extensions being ok – was the incorrect one.
At the end of the day, each of us is responsible for our own moral behavior. I’m fortunate enough to live in a community where my gender and sexuality are legal, but – if I didn’t – I’d continue to present as I wanted and fuck who I wanted. (Admittedly bound by what I felt was safe, but with little regard to what I knew was legal.)
To go back to your point of a friend whose work was made into a TV show, as I said, I totally think that’s bullshit. There’s a major difference in my mind – morally and ethically – between non-commercial infringement for personal use (what I’m doing) and commercial infringement to make money.
Ah. You see, I do consider the intellectual efforts of others to have the same stature as other things, such as treating others fairly simply because they’re a person.
I wholeheartedly agree that an immoral law begs not to be obeyed; I’m not sure it’s always wise to do so, however. On the point of contention of whether the law extending copyright is moral or not, the question has been decided, by the Supremes, no less. The thing about the Supreme Court is not that it is infallible; it is infallible because it is, to most intents and purposes, the final word. That means that while you might not agree with a decision, you are bound by it. We all are! Because if we weren’t, and could decide which laws we wanted to obey and which we didn’t, we end up with anarchy. I’m not especially fond of anarchy! Rebellion, yes. I love rebellion, challenging authority and all that. Where I beg to differ is in the importance of intellectual effort.
For instance, I recently got a movie I like from the library. I could easily rip that movie to my laptop and watch it forever. But I don’t, for the simple reason that I consider that to be not-moral. It’s one thing to get a movie out and watch it – there’s no semantic difference to getting a book out of the library and reading it – but I can think of a number of objections to photocopying every page of a book, simply so I could enjoy it later. If I ripped the movie, I’d be taking something from the people who made the movie, namely, I’d put my convenience above their income. Let’s say the movie is “Much Ado About Nothing”; it’s a work that’s firmly in the public domain. Well, the script is; the interpretation of that script most assuredly isn’t. It’s protected by copyright. I love Shakespeare; and I love that particular version of the play. Do I get to rip a copy from the library’s DVD because it’s easier for me? I’ll argue “no”, because that’s not a decision anyone has charged me with making. I could, and probably no one would be any the wiser; but I’d know, and I wouldn’t like to try and justify my actions. The only way I can get a copy is by purchasing one; it matters not whether it’s a second hand one, or a new one. If someone gave me a copy they’d purchased, that would be okay, too. But I don’t get to decide that because Disney is “evil” (to paraphrase) that I’m at liberty to copy as many Mickey Mouse cartoons as I want.
Believe me, there’s a lot I dislike about this current Supreme Court. They’re pro-business and pro-establishment in galling ways; some of their arguments, Citizens United comes immediately to mind, take credulity and bludgeon it into a coma. But that doesn’t mean I get to pick and choose which laws and decisions I’ll abide by. As a practical matter, in my position as an immigrant, I have to abide by all the laws. I do so not because I think the law is good, but because the alternative isn’t something I want to contemplate. But, in general, I don’t have to like the fact that copyright has been extended, and seems to be heading toward the eternal, but I do have to respect that it is the law.
and
Yes, you do get to decide! We each, every day of our lives, decide which laws obey or not. Sometimes we obey them out of pragmatism: I usually avoid turning left illegally because I’m afraid of getting caught, not because I think it’s wrong. Sometimes we obey them out of moral agreement: I don’t steal from the corner grocery store because of the Golden Rule (among other moral reasons). It is entirely legit for you to say – for moral and/or pragmatic reasons – that you disagree with my logic for regularly violating copyrights. But I think it’s ethically problematic to say “The law is the law, so I have to obey.”
Ultimately, we all choose whether or not to obey.
This is out of sequence; I can’t get the “reply” buttons to show! (Two operating systems and three browsers later…)
Perhaps you can use your awesome admin powers and move it to the right spot?
First, an oops: “The Supreme Court is not infallible” because it is never wrong,, it is infallible because it is the final word.
Sorry about that!
I’d never argue that we don’t have free will; what I am trying to convey is that I disagree that you can justify your position re copyright. If a law is unjust, who gets to decide that? You? Everyone else adheres to the law, and yet you place yourself outside its reach, because you disagree with both it and the supporting decisions? The law has been tested, and because you don’t like the testers or what was being tested, you get to ignore it?
Each to their own. It’s not something I’m comfortable doing, but if you, far be for me to tell you otherwise. I just don’t think your moral argument on the matter has a leg to stand on.
We’re going around and around, Rebecca. I do urge you to read Mark Helprin’s book; not only for his beautiful language, but also because he makes some extremely salient points.
I’m with Rebecca here, though I further have the feeling that copyright, as it is currently expressed (constant narrowing of fair use, constant extending of duration), is actively discouraging artistic innovation.
Example: while hip-hop was getting started as a genre, nobody really though much of sampling. Fair use — even supported by the supreme court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. Then in the 90s artists started suing over sampling rights –usually settled out of court. Now, it is an incredibly expensive process to clear samples.
Art that would be impossible to legally make now:
* KLF’s “Doctorin’ the Tardis” (or pretty much anything else by the KLF)
* Danger Mouse’s The Grey Album (this was in fact not made legally, though it is brilliant)
* Pretty much all older Drum&Bass (samples the breakbeat from “Amen Brother” by The Winstons)
All art is based on other art. Making that illegal just hurts society.
If I remember, the thing about the sampling was that the hip-hop artists figured they could take the sampled work without compensation or permission.
If you use someone’s work, you’re bound to pay them for it. You often have to get permission as well; Weird Al, for instance, recently complained that Lady Gaga had refused permission for him to parody one of her songs. It turned out to be a misunderstanding, and permission was granted. Fortunately, you don’t need permission to do a parody. Weird Al is weird and asks. But, if memory serves, the hip hop artists didn’t ask and forgot the bit about paying as well. (If memory serves, it was an Abba “sampling” that really got the whole thing rolling?)
Your argument about art being derivative isn’t quite applicable. What the hip hop artists were doing was basically a cover version of a song; that’s not art, as far as I’d argue, anyway. The closest I can come up with is the Pop Artists of the 1960′s; Roy Lichtenstein in particular. It’s something I’ve thought about, but have never reached a conclusion. I think there’s a vast difference between Mr Lichtenstein’s intent and that of the “sampling” hip hop artist.
There’s a lot of examples, from the Kabbalah to the covers of rock songs, that argue that the hip hop artists were legitimate in their efforts. Unfortunately, the people they generally neglected to pay disagreed!
But getting to your point about art being based on other art. Art influences art; I don’t think you can argue that the hip hop artists were being influenced; they were re-interpreting. And doing so in a commercial manner; that’s where it got sticky.
To say art is based on other art would imply that art is a building block system; it isn’t. No one can explain the leaps that Picasso made, for instance, throughout his career, by arguing that his work was based on other art. He was influenced by a number of sources; those inspirations changed and his art changed as a result. For instance, no one can say that cubism was based on impressionism, but it’s impossible to not see that there is a direct link between the two. The cubists, however, rapidly explored their new vernacular; I don’t think you can argue the same about the hip hop sampling.
Mind you, I’m not a fan of hip hop, and I’ve never particularly liked the whole “sampling” thing – it seemed a bit of a cheat, to be honest – so I’m probably not the right person to talk to that point. You’d have to persuade me, in other words!
Not to restart any discussion, but I thought you might be interested in this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03righthaven.html?hpw
Carolyn Ann, I don’t think that article means what you think it does. That article points up the ridiculous nature of the current copyright system. If you follow the right haven case, they are being sued , because basically they were running a scam to extort money from other publishers. Turns out they didn’t even have valid copyrights before suing all those people. It was all ablackmail scheme. Their efforts are the same as the RIAA or the MPAA. It’s not about protecting the content creators, it’s about scoring some quick bucks off of frightened consumers.
[...] had my Nook for about three weeks now (here’s my original mini-review) and I wanted to add some more thoughts. I have a particularly relevant experience to compare and [...]
Copyright is not a right. It is granted as an exemption that gives a monopoly on a expression of an idea for a limited time. Copyright has not existed until the twentieth century, and as far as I can tell, the arts did fine. There are very good arguments to be made that current copyright law is stifling innovation, not fostering it. Then there is the problems with digital vs actual works, infinite vs scarcity. By copying a digital work, there is very limited if any damage to the content creator.
While I think we’re on the same page in terms of the pros and cons of copyright, this – “Copyright has not existed until the twentieth century” – isn’t true. From Wikipedia:
and
So the base idea of copyright – that an individual should be granted monopolistic control over his or her creative works – goes back hundreds of years. But I would absolutely agree that modern copyright is way to long even though I don’t inherently impose all copyright protections.
Just popped back to point out a Guardian article on copyright in the UK, Rebecca. It’s here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/22/uk-intellectual-property-law-cameron
Tom: I was merely pointing out an interesting article to Rebecca. There were no implications beyond that. I merely thought she’d like to read it. I’d disagree that the effort is a blackmail scheme; I’d say it was, like the RIAA thing, all about intimidation. I’d also assert that copyright trolls, like patent trolls, are definitely the downside to any enforcement mechanism. Unfortunately, they exist and there’s not a lot (nothing, really) anyone can do about them. Remove those leeches from the system and you either prevent or hinder valid claims as well.
For patents, require filing a patent to have a patent model or some sort of similar demonstration of actual development, instead of today’s “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” system of submitting for patents. While you’re at it, outlaw software patents.
For copyright, more clearly define what ‘fair use’ means and/or make non-commercial infringement legal.
Absolutely agree on the whole software patent thing. (Even though I do have one software patent application to my name. The company I worked for didn’t follow through. C’est la vie.)
The courts are arriving at a workable “fair use”; in general it’s easy to understand. I don’t know about your argument over non-commercial use. I think the originator of a work deserves compensation. Otherwise you end up with an open source world and that wouldn’t be good. Really, it wouldn’t. What incentive would, say, Pink Floyd, have to create if non-commercial exploitation of their work was allowed? I could start a band, exploit their work, develop a reputation and then exploit that to make myself rich. (Hmm… There’s something to that…
)
Well, if you’re exploiting their work, at some point is is commercial use. But I agree, that line is admittedly fuzzy.
More broadly, the vast history of civilization involved creative arts outside of copyright protection, because there was no way to really enforce the idea of copyrighting a story or a song. My biggest beef with the current copyright system is it isn’t encouraging creation, it’s encouraging reproduction. That is, there’s a financial incentive by copyright holders (usually not the original artists) to get people to buy the work over and over and over again. The Beatles, Elvis, Alfred Hitchcock, Virginia Wolf, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and on and on and on – none of these creative artists need copyright protection any longer if the goal of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works, and yet much of their work still remains ‘protected.’
Protected from what, exactly?
As I’ve said before, as a creative artist myself, I am not inherently opposed to the concept of copyright. But the deal of copyright strikes both ways: I won’t copy your creative work if you release it to the public domain after a reasonable amount of time. My definition of ‘reasonable’ is apparently different than the Supreme Court’s, I admit, but I’m still not losing sleep over my decisions.