J.D. Salinger legal battle and authors rights

[HarryT]

I agree with you, Ralph - current copyright terms are indeed too long. Just making the point that being in copyright does not prohibit using the work as a part of the "common culture".

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you, Ralph - current copyright terms are indeed too long. Just making the point that being in copyright does not prohibit using the work as a part of the "common culture".

My apologies, Harry.....

[doreenjoy]

I think the author has a right not to see his work used by others to make money. He invented the characters and the world. So long as his work is under copyright, he has the right to keep it inviolate. Comparisons to Hamlet (whose author was long dead) are off the mark, IMO, because Salinger is a living author.

There is a wide variety of opinions about derivative works among authors & artists.

Personally I think it's sad that J.D. Salinger is so protective of his works, but understandable. The author himself certainly has the right to his opinions regarding his own work.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by AngelHare

Is there a simple answer to this problem, or are we stuck with watching authors such as Salinger getting ripped off?

Well, the music industry never found one....

I do think copyrights can be enforced a little better, but the problem is that the more effective means will also become increasingly draconian, expensive and unpopular to enforce.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If the US copyright rules under which the original book was written and published had been maintained, Catcher In The Rye would have gone into the public domain in 2008, negating the basis for the lawsuit. But with all the extensions it won't go into public domain (US) until 2046 ...

While I agree that current copyright laws are too long, you may want to keep in mind that life was, to put it mildly, very different in 1790 when the original 28-year maximum period was set. To start with, average life expectancy was more like 25 years instead of 75. Also it was far more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to duplicate a book than it is now.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

He is 90 years old and has recently broken his hip and is suffering otherwise from the effects of old age. How would such a man, who is publically known to be demanding of his privacy and control of his works, handle finding out or indeed comprehend that anyone with a web browser can get hold of a badly edited copy of Catcher with a simple Google search and not pay a brass razoo to read and share it?

This is a strange argument. Should we reason different just because ha has broken his hip? He have to handle it as anybody else.

[Hellmark]

I personally think, in what I've seen, is that if they offer a cheap and easy system, with little restrictions, that people are more apt to use it. The harder it is to use, and to use the product, the more likely they will to pirate.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you're giving it away for free, like "Fan Fiction", that's fine, but not (IMHO) if this is a commercial publication that's being sold to make money.

How is that any more immoral than typesetting some public domain work, throwing some dime-a-dozen academic's foreword in front of it, and selling it worldwide?

I ask, because as far as I understood you in the past, you don't seem to find the former outrageous.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is a strange argument. Should we reason different just because ha has broken his hip? He have to handle it as anybody else.

The bit about the hip helps us ascertain without the shadow of a doubt that however he would handle it, it would not be by jumping up and down very angrily!

- Ahi

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is a strange argument. Should we reason different just because ha has broken his hip? He have to handle it as anybody else.

I think my point is he is physically vulnerable and ill. How much worse is it to take advantage of the ill in your value system (if indeed you possess one)?

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by ahi

The bit about the hip helps us ascertain without the shadow of a doubt that however he would handle it, it would not be by jumping up and down very angrily!

- Ahi

This is true too - and no point hollering at him either; he's now completely deaf too..

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

I think my point is he is physically vulnerable and ill. How much worse is it to take advantage of the ill in your value system (if indeed you possess one)?

I am not gonna bite apparent trolling. But how is it depriving from income or taking advantage, when people want to publish sequel?

He want's to protect his characters - fine, but I don't think he looses any money if somebody writes sequel. So chill.

[Hellmark]

The only way he'd lose money, is if the sequel was so bad, that it forever tarnished what people thought of it, and usually that sort of thing only happens if it is considered an official sequel.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

The only way he'd lose money, is if the sequel was so bad, that it forever tarnished what people thought of it, and usually that sort of thing only happens if it is considered an official sequel.

And when it happens, people often ignore it and no one knows about it. For example, Roger Zelazny's Amber series has 3 prequels that are considered to be very bad compared to the original series, but almost no one who isn't a hardcore fan knows about them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ahi

How is that any more immoral than typesetting some public domain work, throwing some dime-a-dozen academic's foreword in front of it, and selling it worldwide?

I ask, because as far as I understood you in the past, you don't seem to find the former outrageous.

- Ahi

Because anyone can do whatever they wish with a work that's in the public domain.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

I think my point is he is physically vulnerable and ill. How much worse is it to take advantage of the ill in your value system (if indeed you possess one)?

Actually, I just commented on the "how to handle" bit. And the point was also that it is not trivially true that the current law reflects the correct moral in this situation.

The extremely long copyright is taking advantage of the public. There is nothing moral about hindering the development of new culture. I usually do not think that bank robbery is OK just because the robber is ill.