Arrrrgh! Mockingbird Graphic Novel

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by jswinden

I won't argue the legal standpoint, and frankly I don't care what a bunch of legal-beagles from past, present, or future think about anything. Lawyers are merely word twisters who manage to get the politicians and courts to believe what they spew out. In my opinion that does not determine right or wrong, that merely determines whose line of BS won the argument on that day. And I care not whether something has a chance of being changed or not. All I'm saying is that in my opinion a work of art like a novel should be the PROPERTY of the author until s/he sells same to another person or allows someone to inherit it. If lawyers think otherwise, then roll up a newpaper and smack 'em on the nose! Bad legal-beagle, bad boy!

It's not a case of lawyers, it's a case of reality. One can not own that which can not be held. It simply isn't practical. The only truly practical copyright is the case in which the book is never published.

If you are trying to make a moral argument, how much of one's labor does anyone own? Only certain groups of artists try such a claim, and frankly that's a very recent thing. What makes them different than everyone else?

The argument behind copyright is that the arts and sciences enriches society, yet the arts and sciences only enrich society if the product is not treated as property and thus is made available to society as a whole. Copyright is a social contract, not a moral right per se.

[barryem]

I think the argument for copyright is basically that it's a way to insure that creative people get paid for being creative. The original intent, at least in the USA, is that it gives the creator a head start. That was much discussed in the Federalist Papers, if I remember correctly. Or maybe it was in letters among the framers of the constitution. It's been a few decades since I was into history that much but I do remember reading about that. It's what got me interested in the question of copyright.

The idea of ownership of something intangible is a bit silly but it's something we agree to accept and acknowledge for a "limited time", silly or not, because it's good for all of us.

The problem today is that "limited time" has been re-defined so that it's now something like 5,000 years after the death of Mickey Mouse.

Barry

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Same here in USA. I think currently any estate valued over $250,000 is subject to an inheritance tax. While we are alive, the annual property and school taxes we pay based on the current value of our houses can add up in a few decades to be more than what we initially paid for the house. Some elderly people bought homes after WWII in Austin and paid them off by the 1980s. They then retired on limited incomes. The property values in the mid-1990s rose so high, and continue to do so, that many of these people were forced out of their lifetime homes due to property taxes rising to a level higher than they could afford to pay. Over here you never really own your house, you will be paying the bank and/or the county and school district until you die!

2013 is when our property values skyrocketed. 1990's you could get properties cheap here.
But you are so correct on pay till you die.

*Jack and I are in the same state but totally different economies.
Jack has bulls*** and I have dinosaur farts.
Or in other words, he is in the cattle and not sure what else country and I am in oilfield country.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by jswinden

All I'm saying is that in my opinion a work of art like a novel should be the PROPERTY of the author until s/he sells same to another person or allows someone to inherit it.

Had that happened, a book that currently costs US$5.00 would cost at least US$5,000, if not more. The price difference is due to insurance premiums to cover the inevitable copyright lawsuit, and the resulting royalty payments, because your work is a copyright violation. An infringement that occurred despite you having never heard of the author, much less the work that was allegedly infringed upon.

[BelleZora]

Originally Posted by barryem

I also don't think the graphic novel is likely to be chosen by schools instead of the book but I do know of one situation similar to that. In Texas when I was growing up everybody got Texas history every year. One of the textbooks, usually used in alternate years as I recall, was in graphic form. It was a big thick comic book, with much larger pages than most comic books and probably 2/3" thick. It covered pretty much everything the normal textbook covered and it was probably read by a lot more people. I used to love reading that thing.

I've always enjoyed history so I didn't enjoy that as a way out of reading the usual textbook, but for it's own sake. And it was a decent textbook in it's own right. It had pretty much all the facts of the normal textbook and it put us right in the middle of things as well.

I loved that Texas History 'comic' book. It is the text book I remember best. It even had humor such as the look on the captured General Santa Anna's face when he was trying to pass himself off as a private until his captured troops bowed to him. That graphic text book inspired a lifelong love of history.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

What if some read the graphic novel instead of reading the original? For example, they were about to read the original but then they see the comic and pick that up instead, as being "easier". Is that still OK? What if the graphic novel is studied in school instead of the original? Where do we draw the line, if at all?

What if some watch the film instead of reading the original? For example, they were about to read the original but then they see the DVD and pick that up instead, as being "easier". Is that still OK? What if the film is studied in school instead of the original? Do we demand there stop being film adaptations of books?

Do you avoid watching movies that were adapted from books unless you have already read the book?

[MGlitch]

They've done the same to Shakespeare, and many others, in the past. I'm not so bothered by the format translation, especially since it's got the chance to draw them to read the original if they liked the graphic novel.

What I draw issue with is the estate very likely going against the wishes of Lee, it's not like we've seen a lot of format translations for the novel afterall, just different editions of the book and the one movie. Which to me says she, Lee, would not have wanted this graphic novel.

Now yes, the estate should be free to make decisions, and to try to be profitable. But it's unlikely that the estate was suffering for income given that the book is constantly in demand by school children every year, along with who knows how many college students. This is, of course, not counting adults who opt to purchase it. I'd also be willing to be the estate gets a share of the royalties on viewings of the movie.

So legally, yes they're clearly allowed to do this. Ethically though I think it's more of a grey area, I feel they should have left it at 'Go Set A Watchman'.

[Ken Maltby]

So millennials will have to choose, Cliff Notes or Comic Book?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

So millennials will have to choose, Cliff Notes or Comic Book?

And keep off my lawn!