Arrrrgh! Mockingbird Graphic Novel

[HarryT]

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?

I don't draw lines for other people - what they read is for them to decide.

I can certainly imagine circumstances in which it might be appropriate for someone to read a graphic novel rather than the original. Young children, perhaps, or people learning English. One would have to consider each circumstance on its own merits. I'm certainly not going to say "graphic novels are bad in all circumstances", but neither will I say that they're better than the original.

[shalym]

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?

Why does it matter, as long as the story is told and the message is portrayed accurately?

This is one novel where the message is as important (or maybe more important) than the story.

If this allows a broader audience, then in my opinion at least, it's a very good thing.

Shari

Originally Posted by pwalker8

....You could even tweak it so that an individual copyright holder could renew all his copyrights at one time so it wouldn't be a burden on the copyright holder.

I'm of the opinion that copyrights, like real property, should be the possession of whoever inherits them for as long as they live, then repeat that for every subsequent owner. I've never understood why intellectual property is treated any differently. What ever intellectual property I might create or inherit should be mine as long as I live or until I sell the rights to it to someone else. I can see taking away the copyright protections if there is no clear proof of ownership, the works of Aristotle for example, but if inheritance can be proved then the copyright protections should remain intact. I cannot imagine telling Lord Mucketymuck that he has to move out of the manor because the 70 year limit on retaining ownership of the manor has expired, or telling the current owner of their grandparent's homestead they have to allow anyone who wants to, to move onto the property and into the house. Same goes for artwork. There is no expiration on ownership or rights for paintings, so why do we impose them on another form of art called writing? Makes no sense to me.

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?

I don't think we should draw the line at all. People should be free to read whatever they desire in whatever format they desire. I personally prefer to read the original if possible, but I would never require that from others. I'm sure I would enjoy some of the other formats too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jswinden

if inheritance can be proved then the copyright protections should remain intact. I cannot imagine telling Lord Mucketymuck that he has to move out of the manor because the 70 year limit on retaining ownership of the manor has expired

Of course taxation achieves much the same ends. The entire value of an estate above a certain value is taxed at 40% in death duties, so every generation of Lord Mucketymuck's family has to find 40% of the estate value to pay in hard cash, or they will indeed have to move out of the manor! That's why the majority of Britain's "Stately Homes" are now owned by the National Trust, and not the original family who built them.

[barryem]

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?

I think that someone, just like you and I, gets to decide what and how they'll read. So that's okay with me. I can't imagine myself preferring a graphic novel to a book but I have no problem with those who do.

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 wouldn't think graphic textbooks should replace normal textbooks but using them along with normal textbooks can be very useful at times.

Barry

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course taxation achieves much the same ends. The entire value of an estate above a certain value is taxed at 40% in death duties, so every generation of Lord Mucketymuck's family has to find 40% of the estate value to pay in hard cash, or they will indeed have to move out of the manor! That's why the majority of Britain's "Stately Homes" are now owned by the National Trust, and not the original family who built them.

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!

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Same here in USA. I think currently any estate valued over $250,000 is subject to an inheritance tax.

The current federal exemption is over $5m and only a handful of states still have state-level estate or inheritance taxes.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by jswinden

I'm of the opinion that copyrights, like real property, should be the possession of whoever inherits them for as long as they live, then repeat that for every subsequent owner. I've never understood why intellectual property is treated any differently. What ever intellectual property I might create or inherit should be mine as long as I live or until I sell the rights to it to someone else. I can see taking away the copyright protections if there is no clear proof of ownership, the works of Aristotle for example, but if inheritance can be proved then the copyright protections should remain intact. I cannot imagine telling Lord Mucketymuck that he has to move out of the manor because the 70 year limit on retaining ownership of the manor has expired, or telling the current owner of their grandparent's homestead they have to allow anyone who wants to, to move onto the property and into the house. Same goes for artwork. There is no expiration on ownership or rights for paintings, so why do we impose them on another form of art called writing? Makes no sense to me.



I don't think we should draw the line at all. People should be free to read whatever they desire in whatever format they desire. I personally prefer to read the original if possible, but I would never require that from others. I'm sure I would enjoy some of the other formats too.

Mostly because copyright isn't property. Intellectual property is a term that, rather ironically, was coined in a rhetorical essay pointing out that each idea is based on other people's ideas. Copyright is a legal monopoly granted by the government and has nothing to do with property. Originally a copyright had nothing to do with who originated a work and everything to do with what printer had the king's ear.

Copyright and patents in the US are enshrined in the Constitution as a time limited grant in the public interest. For a copyright to be legally considered property you would have to amend the Constitution.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright and patents in the US are enshrined in the Constitution as a time limited grant in the public interest. For a copyright to be legally considered property you would have to amend the Constitution.

Probably no more difficult than amending the Berne Copyright Convention to meet your suggestion .

[pwalker8]

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!

Actually, I believe that the exclusionary amount for the US death tax is around $5 M, though different states also may or may not have a death tax. The death tax in the US is one of those things that has varied quite a bit over time. Sometimes the death tax is removed, only to be added back later. I think that the current tax reform bill removes it, but that may change as it moves through Congress.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably no more difficult than amending the Berne Copyright Convention to meet your suggestion .

The US doesn't have to amend the Berne Convention. They didn't sign the treaty until the late 70's and can quite easily withdraw from it if they desire to. Treaties don't trump the US Constitution, though some have thrown out that particular legal speculation as a way to get around the requirements of the Constitution.

Of course, there is very little pressure to withdraw from the treaty and quite a bit of pressure from Hollywood and the music industry not to. Most people don't really care all that much about copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, there is very little pressure to withdraw from the treaty and quite a bit of pressure from Hollywood and the music industry not to. Most people don't really care all that much about copyright.

That's the point, of course. The reason that countries sign up to the Berne Convention is that it grants reciprocal rights in all member nations. If the US were to withdraw from the treaty, they'd have to negotiate individual bilateral copyright treaties with every country in the world, which would be a nightmare.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

The current federal exemption is over $5m and only a handful of states still have state-level estate or inheritance taxes.

Wow, it increased by 10x since my mom died in 1991 when I last checked!

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!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the point, of course. The reason that countries sign up to the Berne Convention is that it grants reciprocal rights in all member nations. If the US were to withdraw from the treaty, they'd have to negotiate individual bilateral copyright treaties with every country in the world, which would be a nightmare.

True enough. The US didn't sign the treaty until the movie income from outside the US started to become significant. DVD's and now digital download of movies changed the business model for Hollywood a lot.

On the flip side, I can see the US tweaking book copyright to handle orphaned works in a different manner. There seems to be enough interest building in doing so without much in the way of push back. Most likely some sort of scheme where a publisher can license a work for a percentage which would then go into a trust to be held in case someone actually shows up and claims it.