Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
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.
|
I'm just offering examples to counter your claim that "society has [not] benefitted greatly" from derivatives created from public domain works (your words, quoted directly, sic). I never claimed to make any other point, at least in relation to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
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.
|
Your opinion is also a
slippery slope fallacy, not to mention
ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
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.
|
If your definition of success for the public domain is "every single book ever written uses it" then we shouldn't even bother discussing the topic.
No, not "everybody" is using Shakespeare, Dickens, Austin, or dozens of other writers from other time periods, but even a non-trivial amount of people doing so is worth the effort. The widespread use of fiction worlds for fan-fiction are further proof that writers of every age and talent level are interested in using other works as a starting point for further writing, be it practice or serious publishing efforts - both beneficial to mass culture in the long run.