Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcastle
There are some wonderful pieces of literature that would have never existed without the public domain. For example, is essentially a hidden set of acts in Hamlet, and it's a wonderful play that draws and builds on Shakespeare's words, characters and ideas. And there are dozens more movies, books and plays where those came from, from Hamlet alone! These works are great on their own, and in turn make Hamlet itself even greater. The free use of that play is fundamental in that creativity.
I doubt anyone would suggest that copyright should be abolished entirely, so Twilight clones would not be much of an issue. In a fair arrangement, the time would come long after the market was still heavily demanding Twilight or books like it. Does anyone really think that letting the 1930's and 1940's into the 2014 public domain suddenly allow a flood of fads from those periods to resurface?
|
I've never said or even thought that there should be copyright forever. Rozencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead is pretty derivative, but I don't think it was written within 75 years of Shakespeare's death? Or am I mistaken? Not sure how it makes Hamlet any greater, but bow to your opinion on that.
My opinion (and it is only an opinion), is many who decry copyright seek to benefit from using or obtaining at no cost, currently popular works, and if copyright was lowered to 50 years the demands would be for 25, then 10 etc.
And if most of the successful writers of the last century managed under the
restrictions without the world falling into cultural poverty, why can't those of today? It's not like everybody is using Shakespeare or Dickens etc. as a springboard even though they can.
Helen