What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?

from the trying-to-figure-it-out dept

Against Monopoly points us to a NY Times article that discusses some of the recent "controversies" over unauthorized sequels/prequels/re-imaginings of certain classic books, including the ban on an unauthorized "sequel" to Catcher in the Rye -- as well as the awesome addition of zombies to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, now known as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. But the key point is made towards the end:
Yet the urge to write sequels and prequels is almost always an homage of sorts. We don't want more of books we hate. The books that get re-written and re-imagined are beloved. We don't want them ever to be over. We pay them the great compliment of imagining that they're almost real: that there must be more to the story, and that characters we know so well -- Elizabeth Bennet, for one, or Sherlock Holmes, who has probably inspired more sequels than any other fictional being -- must have more to their lives. In a couple of quite good sequels recently -- "A Slight Trick of the Mind," by Mitch Cullin, and "Final Solution: A Story of Detection," by Michael Chabon -- we even get to watch Holmes grow old and discover love of a sort.

Certain books are more than mere texts -- words on a page or, these days, an electronic reading device. They're part of our mental furniture. And yet it's their familiarity, their well-wornness, that makes them such tempting targets. If zombies were to turn up, for example, in Mrs. Gaskell's "Cranford," it wouldn't be nearly so funny.
And, then when you think about it, if copyright is designed to encourage more creativity, wouldn't these sorts of re-imaginings of already existing fictional worlds fit that criteria exactly?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:13am

    As long as the original copyright has expired, there should be no problem with unauthorized sequels and re-imaginings. But until that period expires, the author gets the sole right to use the material as they see fit.

    I hesitate to say something positive about the music industry but, given the last elections sampling of music by John McCain (Heart's Barracuda for example), I liked how by making sure the artist was compensated fairly anyone could use the works during the time copyright was still in effect. Heart didn't like it much, but as was pointed out, they didn't have much say because the licenses had been properly paid.

    The Heart example was just 'using' an original work as is not transformative. But would it have been different if they had simply changed the words to include 'Sarah Barracuda' so that it wasn't exactly the same? I think paying the royalty fee would allow you to do what you want with it, no?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:14am

    Didn't use to be

    There used to be dozens of these sorts of works for any popular novel. Then someone got the idea that 'derivative works' would be a profitable thing to draw rent from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:21am

    One writer's ego

    By suing authors of unauthorized prequels or sequels, one would think you can effectively kill off the series. Well, at least, your die-hard fans will know about your inability to find common ground and other shenanigans.

    On another note, does anyone know if an author gets special privileges to take a story with them when they die? Is there a special deal worked out with God or some other deity over this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:26am

    Re: Didn't use to be

    I remember reading "Bored of the Rings" for one example, there were entire collections of sequels and spoofs being made at one point in time...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    David (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:27am

    I just don't get it...

    If I wrote something, I would love to see people expanding on it. I have actually thought of several story lines based in some of my favorite stories, but have not gone forward with them, because I was afraid of being stopped with them.

    If I were to write a sequel to a book, and it took off, don't you think that people would then go and discover the original work? I would!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:27am

    Re:

    As long as the original copyright has expired, there should be no problem with unauthorized sequels and re-imaginings. But until that period expires, the author gets the sole right to use the material as they see fit.

    They get exclusive rights over copying. Why should that extend to writing new works? There ought to be no such thing as copyright over a character (I don't know if there is or not, copyright law is such a mess).

    So unless the character is trademarked (which I think is also problematic unless the character is actually used as a mark to represent an entire company or brand), anyone should be able to release a novel or movie about Batman, Captain Kirk, Gatsby, or anyone else, without worrying about whether the original author approves. But just try it and count the days (or perhaps hours) until you get sued. The exact opposite of what copyright is supposed to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Esahc (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    Don't you mean 'the author and his decedents (who had nothing to do with the original works) get the sole right to use the material as they see fit?'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:37am

    My only issue as a writer

    ...is losing control over a character I'm still writing about. For authors, I think there should be some concept or limitation of how characters can be used, assuming that it's not a parody attempt.

    For instance, I have a story, intended to be a series, in which a very, very anti-government citizen is pursuing national traitors that are part of the Illuminati. Now, I've got one book done, and I'm working on another. What if the 1st get released, someone really likes and is a talented writer, and then writes a popular sequel in which my anti-government character gives into temptation and joins the FBI? Well, depending on its popularity, that story can seriously fuck up the canon(sp?) of the story I was in the midst of creating.

    There definitely needs to be a limit, thought. If an author hasn't released a work including that character within, say, 5 years, then you're no longer actively creating and others should be allowed to do so.

    I'm thinking along the lines of the tight control that Lucas keeps over the Star Wars universe in all the novels by all of the authors working on that universe. The stories have to be approved to make sure they're in keeping with the canon. In a tightly limited way....I guess as a writer I kind of like that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re:

    No I don't. Descendants only get copyright protection when the author assigns them the copyright, just like anybody else. If the Author dies during the copyright period, his will should assign the copyright to whomever he chooses (including release to public domain).

    But the copyright should exist independent of any person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    dorp, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Re: My only issue as a writer

    What if the 1st get released, someone really likes and is a talented writer...

    So your fear is that someone is better than you... What if that "someone" writes a book with the same themes without knowing anything about your book and it becomes more popular than yours? What grounds will you be missed off at them then?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    "So your fear is that someone is better than you... What if that "someone" writes a book with the same themes without knowing anything about your book and it becomes more popular than yours? What grounds will you be missed off at them then?"

    Believe me, I know that's how it sounds, but for me at least that's NOT what I mean. When you invest in the creation of a character, invest the time, money for classes/books/etc., emotions, whatever, and you're actively writing that story out over several books, I just think it would suck to have someone hijack that in a way that it becomes canon. Granted, it probably wouldn't happen very often, since too many things would have to line up, including the sequel writer being an excellent writer and good enough at transitioning from the original work that people would generally accept the work as canon.

    Take a look at my long list of past comments, I ain't pro-copyright. But what if someone wrote a sequel to the 2nd Harry Potter book in which he died in the 3rd book, and it was good enough that most Harry Potter fans read the book and accepted it as canon. Wouldn't that be kidn of shitty when Rowling was actively working on book 3? Funny, but shitty?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    "But what if someone wrote a sequel to the 2nd Harry Potter book in which he died in the 3rd book, and it was good enough that most Harry Potter fans read the book and accepted it as canon. Wouldn't that be kidn of shitty when Rowling was actively working on book 3? Funny, but shitty?"

    But who's going to confuse that with canon? Slashfic has been around for forty frakin' years, and nobody, slashfic writers included, accepts Kirk/Spock as canon.

    It's just another rent-seeking moment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:05am

    "if copyright is designed to encourage more creativity, wouldn't these sorts of re-imaginings of already existing fictional worlds fit that criteria exactly?"

    Not in the slightest. 90% of the creativity in it happened in the creation of the original characters, settings, and situations. Writing a "homage" or an extension is a remix artist version of writing.

    If you want to be creating, create your own characters, your own settings, and your own circumstances. Using someone else's is just not very creative at all. In the end, copyright is designed in many ways to exactly preclude this going over the same rut, making people think past the ends of their noses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    dorp, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    I just think it would suck to have someone hijack that in a way that it becomes canon.

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "canon" is in creative world.

    First, you assume that one derivative work can all of a sudden define and cement canon. That is wrong. "Canon" does not get defined for a long time and might actually get redefined over time as more and more gets written. Feel free to check out the world of comic books. Also, the original authors commonly have an upper hand in creating "canon" even in a corporate environment such as comic book writing where the works do not belong to them.

    Second, you somehow think that there is such a thing as a "good enough" book being able to kill off series. Really? If Halloween series is any sort of indicator, people have an insatiable appetite for MORE of what they liked.

    You are still coming off as a writer who is afraid to be outdone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    it was good enough that most Harry Potter fans read the book and accepted it as canon

    No true fan would be oblivious to the fact that the book wasn't written by the original author. That is my issue with your argument. Wait a minute...this book was written by J.R. Bowling?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    "You are still coming off as a writer who is afraid to be outdone."

    You build a huge building, and then someone shows up, sticks their flag on top, and claims part ownership of the entire building.

    See where that goes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    Agreed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Petréa Mitchell, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    "But what if someone wrote a sequel to the 2nd Harry Potter book in which he died in the 3rd book, and it was good enough that most Harry Potter fans read the book and accepted it as canon."

    "Canon" by definition would be only work written by Rowling. If an alternate-universe Harry Potter fanfic were really good, then it would be appreciated for being really good, but it would never be canon, unless it were misrepresented as Rowling's work.

    (Something like that did actually happen in the run-up to the publication of the last book, when someone took a fanfic and claimed it was a leaked copy of the book. Many people took it seriously, but only because Rowling's name was on it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Richard Ahlquist (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:27am

    Because Disney

    Because only Disney is allowed to take a story and make it theirs and change it and build sequels on it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:27am

    Re:

    If the books were mindless drivel doing little to no character development and uninspired situations and settings then I can see your statement. However I doubt people would make much money off of it and see it as the worthless hack that it is and not buy that book.

    I believe you are mistaken in assuming that ALL homage's and/or extensions are a static lengthening of the original work.

    Take Time Ships by Stephen Baxter. It is a homage/extension of HG Wells Time Machine. In it the character goes through completely different ordeals and the character evolves throughout the book. All new settings, crammed with character development, new characters thrown in the mix, different situations...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Petréa Mitchell, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:29am

    A few more recent examples

    ...although there have been no copyright controversies about them:

    * "Shoggoths in Bloom", an obvious H. P. Lovecraft derivative, which won Best Novelette at this year's Hugo Awards (and deservedly so, IMHO)
    * "Pride and Prometheus" (PDF), one of its fellow nominees, which combines Pride and Prejudice with Frankenstein
    * Lavinia, by Ursula K. Le Guin, which retells part of the Aeneid from a different point of view

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Llihsyrt Sudni, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:31am

    Copyright to foster creativity?

    In modern business we can not afford to foster unfettered creativity and we must aggressively protect those assets that are owned by business. If anyone can create works whether it be creative works or new inventions based on existing intellectual PROPERTY, then those who STEAL these ideas devalue the corporations that we all need to provide jobs and tax income. Perhaps we should re-evaluate out IP laws to address the needs of the true engines that drive our economy and let go of the nostalgic sense of the cowboy creator. Those days are long gone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    JonMontgo (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:32am

    I think the point that Mike is trying to make here is that a weaker copyright law would allow authors to create derivitive works much quicker. As it stands now now copyrighted work created in our lifetime will enter the public domain. A period of copyright much shorter, say 14 years would allow for greater creativity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    Yeah, you guys are probably right that I'm using the word incorrectly, and if I'm a good enough writer, it will be only MY work that the lover of the character will follow so long as I'm producing.

    But seriously, it really ISN'T that I'm afraid to be outdone, mostly because I KNOW I will be. I'm not the greatest writer out there, not by a long shot, but what few characters I've fully fleshed out I truly LOVE. They're not mine, per se, but I already know they're futures and I they're part of me.

    I don't know, I have to do a lot of thinking on this one. Like I said, I'm far from a pro-IP guy, so I'm not sure how to reconcile this other than perhaps to say my instincts are getting in the way of true understanding....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    "You build a huge building, and then someone shows up, sticks their flag on top, and claims part ownership of the entire building."

    Er, no.

    More like you build your dream house over a waterfall, and someone comes along and explains why that is a stupid idea, since you've now built an expensive house in a floodplain.

    See where that goes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Perry Glasser, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:42am

    sequels, prequels and parodies

    Parody is always fair game -- non-issue for copyright.

    Comparing Austen, who is dead as a post, and Salinger, who is alive and well, is specious.

    Holden Caulfield is Salinger's creation. If he is working on any addition to his creation's fictional history, or intends to in the future, homage be damned. A pirate is at work building a critical reputation and probably some coin without half as much creativity or labor as Caulfield's inventor. Here a shock to Technodirt readers: writing well requires more than typing. That's not homage--it is theft.

    Austen on the other hand can be relied upon not to be producing more work. Give 'em zombies, and if people hunger for Elizabeth and Darcy eating brains, get crazy. Rewrite Shakespeare. Perform Macbeth naked.

    But taking a living writer's work isn't about homage or defending the canon -- it's about expoloitation, quick profit, and theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    No, someone comes along and sticks a flag on the building. We're talking about eliminating the concept of 'ownership', remember? Let's say the flag was a small, but really good addition that the building designer never thought of. Why would you want to forgo many small cumulative creative contributions in favor of few singular monolithic ones?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    You cannot copyright ideas. You cannot copyright characters, plotlines, worlds, etc. You can only copyright the expression of those ideas. If I take your book and rewrite it such that the plot & characters are identical, but I do so in my own words and don't copy yours, I have not violated your copyright. Same if I took your world & characters and made a story where they do things you find completely objectionable.

    It might piss you off, offend you to the core, and even be assholish of me but I have the right to do it, and it does you no actual harm, monetarily or otherwise.

    What I cannot do is take your book, scribble out your name, write mine in, and sell it as my own work. I also could not write anything and claim to be you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:57am

    Re: sequels, prequels and parodies

    "But taking a living writer's work isn't about homage or defending the canon -- it's about expoloitation, quick profit, and theft."

    It might (or might not) be about exploitation and quick profit, but what is this strange definition of "theft"? For there to be theft, someone must be deprived of the use of the property.

    If I write an unauthorized sequel of a living author's work, that author is deprived of nothing -- not even the "potential profit" that music labels claim. The author will not lose any sales because I gained some. It's a very, very different thing than if I copied your work and sold it as mine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 11:59am

    Re: sequels, prequels and parodies

    How is a tribute, homage or parody *any* different if the original author is alive or dead? Or the author of the derivative work, for that matter? The work stands on its own.

    Parody is an excellent example of why derivative works don't harm the original. It is a derivative work that can change the original plot and characters in any number of ways, and have them do any number of things, good or bad. Nobody views that as harming the original author's work, do they? Nobody confuses something on CollegeHumor or FunnyOrDie with the original author's work.

    As long as the distinction is made that it isn't the same author (e.g. it isn't Salinger's own Holden Caulfield), why should it matter?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    RD, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:01pm

    Please..

    "But taking a living writer's work isn't about homage or defending the canon -- it's about exploitation, quick profit, and theft."

    Please explain to us poor, stupid mortals exactly what the author is *permanently* deprived of when someone "steals" from him by using his characters/stories? I think we would all be enlightened as to how that works and how the loss is transferred from the author to the "thief."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Because Disney

    You sir win best comment. Take this victory and hold your head up high, for today you have bested all men.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    Do you ever plan on redecorating your home? That wouldn't follow the original architect's design.

    You could do a great job or make a horrible mess. Neither would be blamed on the architect. And in the case of a story (not something physical), there's nothing to stop the original designer coming along and revising the design to be more pleasing, or to build another addition, or do something else that might stretch this tenuous metaphor further.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    WDS, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Creativity

    Please tell anyone who has seen Wicked performed that there was no creativity involved because it was based on a previous work. OZ would not be as wondrous a place had this prequel not been written.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Matt S (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    I've read and reread your comment, and have no idea how in the world your metaphor relates to the topic of book sequels. I'm curious what you meant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:34pm

    You cannot copyright ideas. You cannot copyright characters, plotlines, worlds, etc. You can only copyright the expression of those ideas. If I take your book and rewrite it such that the plot & characters are identical, but I do so in my own words and don't copy yours, I have not violated your copyright. Same if I took your world & characters and made a story where they do things you find completely objectionable.

    Unfortunately, no. Just because you made up a fictional world, say the Seinfeld TV show, the details of that show are not facts. Similarly, creativity is not embodied merely in the words but also in created characters and plot. Copyright certainly protects characters and plot.

    However, I'm not convinced that fan fic isn't protected by fair use. Assuming fan fic is clearly differentiated from authorized works, I have a hard time believing it affects marked for authorized works. In addition, it's strongly transformative. I would argue that fan fic does infringe the copyright but is protected by fair use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:35pm

    troll much?

    "As long as the original copyright has expired"... which would be fine if we were talking about 28 years. Now we're talking about author's death plus 90. Who benefits from that? No one. It's a monopoly on a work that's potential a hundred years in the past, and for what?

    28 years, period. No extensions, no lifetime benefits. It's ridiculous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:54pm

    Re: troll much?

    most copyrights will probably last well over 100 years. lets assume that authors live to be 70-80 and their works were made when they were 30. that is is 130-140 years that the copyright lasts.

    what this means is that any work created in today's generation won't become public domain until this generation's grand-kids are retired, if even then.

    that's what's really messed up with the system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Geof, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 12:55pm

    Authority and One True Way

    This is about authority over culture: who has it, and whether it should be the law that determines who can give meaning to our experiences of art. I see people here arguing about whether this author or that should have authority over characters and stories. I say neither. It is the *audience* - the human beings who make up *a culture* who are the ultimate authority.

    The fact is that much of the meaning and interpretation of culture is done *by the audience*. WE decide what works we value. We interpret them in our everyday lives. Collectively, all of these little acts of interpretation and meaning-making are what make a given piece of art significant for the culture as a whole. We are co-creators of art. (And by giving it meaning, we also give it popularity and economic value. We create the success of blockbusters - one reason why that success is so hard to predict.)

    We all interpret art differently. I have heard of a study of convicts watching one of the Die Hard movies. Whereas most people see the films as ultimately supporting law and order, the convicts cheered to see the criminals giving the police a piece of their own medicine. The film for them *was a different movie* from what you or I would see.

    I once read an article proposing that the Lord of the Rings was written from the point of view of the victors. Naturally they had depicted their opponents as evil. From the other side, things looked quite differently. Sauron's armies were racially integrated, while the elves, dwarves etc. were segregated. Sauron pursued progress through technology - something his opponents saw as despoiling the landscape.

    This is not just a cute story. This is how all communication works. There is reams of scholarship to support this. Both parties *always* contribute to the meaning of communication. The originator of a message *never* has the exclusive power to dictate how it is understood. Societies where they nearly do are not free.

    Copyright law has embedded within it the fiction that there is one true idea that is communicated or expressed by a work of art. This is a romantic fantasy from the 19th century. It simply isn’t so. There is no one true authoritative interpretation of a work. The only way a work or its author can have that authority is if we, the audience, *give* it.

    If you look back at mythology and folk tales and stories, you will see that there is no one correct version of any of them. There are many. Some may be the only survivors because they were given the status of canon, but for any culturally significant story there are invariably different versions. There are even alternative Gospels for the Bible.

    So. Should the law dictate meaning? Should the authority of the author be enforced be all the coercive powers of government? Should the audience not be permitted to choose what art means to them in their lives? I do not think this is just an abstract question about the nature of authorship. I think it is an essential question about the structure of power and the ability of people to decide what is right or true for themselves, to make meaning, to communicate, persuade - to be democratic participants in society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 1:21pm

    HA!

    Adding zombies to Pride and Predjudice is a great idea!

    Who said copyright is supposed to encourage creativity? Copyright is to designed to protect the creator so money can be earned from the creation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    imbrucy (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "But the copyright should exist independent of any person"

    But what happens if a writer dies and doesn't assign his copyright to anyone? Does that mean the work keeps copyright but no one has the ability to license out that content? How does that "promote the progress of science and useful arts"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    imbrucy (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Copyright to foster creativity?

    Wow, so which industry is paying you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    imbrucy (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 1:35pm

    Re: HA!

    The clause of the constitution states that congress can grant a limited time monopoly to the creator to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts". If the current version of copyright is not encouraging creativity then it is unconstitutional.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Hosermage (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 1:38pm

    Re: creativity?

    Why would people consider writing derivative work being creative? If you're so creative, create your own fictional world and show us. I just think using someone else's idea (and fame, usually) to write a derivative work is just lazy and trying to cash-in the original author's success. Copy right law is fostering creativity here by encouraging original ideas, instead of having 100+ Harry Potter parody because someone think they have a better ending.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: creativity?

    "Why would people consider writing derivative work being creative? If you're so creative, create your own fictional world and show us."

    Exactly! How dare:

    Roger McBride Allen
    Aaron Allston
    John Alvin
    Kevin J. Anderson
    Greg Bear
    Terry Brooks
    Craig Carey
    Chris Cassidy
    Marc Cerasini
    Dan Cragg
    A. C. Crispin
    Elaine Cunningham
    Aaron Curtis
    Brian Daley
    Cathal Danaher
    Hollace Davids
    Paul Davids
    Troy Denning
    William C. Dietz
    Shane Dix
    Dave Dorman
    Tommy Lee Edwards
    Graham Fontes
    Ron Fontes
    Alan Dean Foster
    Donald F. Glut
    Christopher Golden
    Barbara Hambly
    Elizabeth Hand
    Rich Handley
    Patty Jackson
    K. W. Jeter
    Drew Karpyshyn
    Greg Keyes
    Monica Kulling
    James Luceno
    Michael P. Kube-McDowell
    Vonda McIntyre
    Ralph McQuarrie
    Steve Miller
    Rebecca Moesta
    Christopher Moroney
    Charlene Newcomb
    Tish Eggleston Pahl
    John Peel
    Steve Perry
    Michael Reaves
    Nancy Richardson
    Voronica Whitney-Robinson
    Kristine Kathryn Rusch
    R. A. Salvatore
    Peter Schweighofer
    David Sherman
    A. L. Singer
    Bill Slavicsek
    L. Neil Smith
    Michael A. Stackpole
    Sean Stewart
    Matthew Stover
    Todd Strasser
    Karen Traviss
    Chris Trevas
    Ezra Tucker
    Kathy Tyers
    Boris Vallejo
    Graham Mcsweyn
    Daniel Wallace
    Jude Watson
    John Whitman
    Ryder Windham
    Dean Williams
    Sean Williams
    Walter Jon Williams
    Dave Wolverton
    Timothy Zahn

    Consider their authorized Star Wars Universe novels "creative". All they did was...create...wai a minute....

    Retard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Geof, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 2:41pm

    "Originality" requirement produces repitition

    By Hosermage's logic, writers who set their stories in the real world are taking the easy way out.

    Most artists are better at some things than others. But most creative works these days require a range of creativity to create. If artists are required to ensure that *every* part of their work is original, then they have to divert effort from the areas where they excel to produce workmanlike filler for the parts where they aren't so creative. Even Shakespeare borrowed plots from elsewhere, focusing his creative energies on his skill with language.

    In practice, limits on building on existing creativity produce two phenomena. 1) A lot of second-rate imitations - works or creative elements that are similar to something well known, but are different enough to be non-infringing (e.g. TV shows make up tunes that are recognizably similar to iconic songs like the Mission Impossible theme). 2) Consolidation of production in big media companies who can provide artists with the support they need (allowing them to use existing characters, for example) - in exchange for ownership and control.

    This kind of "originality" does not seem to me to justify a complex legal regime of limited effectiveness being applied to just about every form of communication.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 3:36pm

    Re:

    If you want to be creating, create your own characters, your own settings, and your own circumstances. Using someone else's is just not very creative at all.

    Yes, tell that to Shakespeare, who used others' characters for most of his works, including pretty much all of the famous ones.

    He wasn't creating at all, I guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Re: HA!

    Yawn. Creativity isn't duplicating someone else's effort and adding a very small bit at the end, that is just being a copycat, not much else.

    Creativity is coming up with something yourself, from scratch, developing characters, situations, back stories, peril, risk, and resolution. That is creativity.

    Making a photocopy of someone elses work and writing "da" over every "the" in the text isn't creative.

    When you understand what creativity is, then the rest follows. This whole deal is just another one of Mike's magicial mystery tours, attempting to shade over copyright by misdirection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    another mike (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer

    Most of the authors I've met usually like their fan-fiction. Or maybe I only associate with the authors that support their fans. Anyway, most really do like guest authors, within broad but very strictly adhered to guidelines.
    The original author fleshed out the characters, wove the plotlines, designed the tech or magic that powers their worlds, and set their universe in motion. In other words, fanfic authors are guests in the original author's house.
    Interstitial stories between the author's own work, minor plotlines filled in, even entire worlds dropped in the corner of the universe; but you don't change the major characters or their plots as a guest author.
    If you're a good guest, the worst you'll really face is being ignored. You could even be invited back. If you're a bad guest and start breaking your host's universe, expect to be put down like a rabid dog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    RD, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 4:46pm

    Time to get a clue

    "Yawn. Creativity isn't duplicating someone else's effort and adding a very small bit at the end, that is just being a copycat, not much else.

    Creativity is coming up with something yourself, from scratch, developing characters, situations, back stories, peril, risk, and resolution. That is creativity."

    Dear colossal fucktard: Let me introduce you to something called creating in a vacuum. This exists only in your mind, and in the minds of pro-copyright nazi's. EVERYONE else, including whomever you might hold up as the standard-bearer of your "create your own stuff without ANY influence from ANY previous work", has built off what came before. This is true in EVERY case. Star Wars wasnt an original idea created "from scratch." Lucas himself has stated how many of the elements came from other sources. The Jedi and Lightsabers are the Knights of the Round Table with energy swords. NOTHING is created 100% original within itself. Grow up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Geof, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 4:53pm

    "Creativity isn't duplicating someone else's effort and adding a very small bit at the end, that is just being a copycat, not much else."

    So what about artists who take works in the public domain, make some changes, and copyright the result? Like, oh, photographing a centuries-old painting. Publishing a collection of fairy tales with some brief comments on each. And so on. I hope you will agree that by your logic these things should not be covered by copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 17th, 2009 @ 4:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: HA!

    "Yawn. Creativity isn't duplicating someone else's effort and adding a very small bit at the end, that is just being a copycat, not much else."

    Yeaaahhh, and a doodoo head, too.

    Seriously? Copycat?

    I'm slowly changing my mind from my original position and coming around to see why fanfic and derivative works by others can be good things, but for a completely different reason: I believe that fans of my fiction, true fans that care enough to want to write with the characters created, will:

    A. Know the characters well enough to do a good job
    and
    B. Be relatively respectful of the original author.

    Bring me some copycats!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    RD, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 4:59pm

    A valid point

    "So what about artists who take works in the public domain, make some changes, and copyright the result? Like, oh, photographing a centuries-old painting. Publishing a collection of fairy tales with some brief comments on each. And so on. I hope you will agree that by your logic these things should not be covered by copyright."

    A very good point, since this is how Disney got started, by raiding PD works, making a few small changes, then locking them up for the next 150+ years in copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 5:04pm

    Re:

    "Creativity isn't duplicating someone else's effort and adding a very small bit at the end, that is just being a copycat, not much else."

    So what about artists who take works in the public domain, make some changes, and copyright the result? Like, oh, photographing a centuries-old painting. Publishing a collection of fairy tales with some brief comments on each. And so on. I hope you will agree that by your logic these things should not be covered by copyright. i don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 5:07pm

    Re: Time to get a clue

    Rd, as usual, you are an abusive and rude poster. Please tone it down.

    Now, fucktard, let me explain something simple to you:

    "Star Wars wasnt an original idea created "from scratch." Lucas himself has stated how many of the elements came from other sources. The Jedi and Lightsabers are the Knights of the Round Table with energy swords."

    Did Lucas just take the knights of the round table and write and extra chapter at the end? Did he just take an article about energy swords and make a mashup of it with a Madonna video? Nope.

    He took broad, wide concepts and created something entirely new.

    That there is exactly the difference between being creative and just being a fucktard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    dorp, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 6:06pm

    Re: Re: Time to get a clue

    He took broad, wide concepts and created something entirely new.

    That there is exactly the difference between being creative and just being a fucktard.


    And where do you draw the line between "broad, wide concepts" and copying? Yes Mr. Coward, you just created a gray area that you will now have to define. And once you start defining, you fill find out that you are not getting paid enough shill money to pull that off. Even our honorable congressmen can't find the line in the gray area, so the only thing we can expect from you is misdirection and name calling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2009 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Time to get a clue

    "where do you draw the line between "broad, wide concepts" and copying? Yes Mr. Coward, you just created a gray area that you will now have to define."

    Everything in life is grey, except for birth and death, get use to it. While we live in a digital age, we don't live as but 1s and 0s.

    Example of a broad concept is "spacemen in a war". Example of violation of copyright is "Luke Skywalker, on the planet alderan, gets two new droids with a message for an old man who lives somewhere else on the planet".

    Almost everything falls pretty neatly on one side or the other of that simple concept.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 18th, 2009 @ 12:27am

    Personal Privacy is Intangible

    "What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?"
    ------------------

    Nothing. So long as you don't try to make money off it while giving the creator you're ripping off exactly zilch. All those authors cock helmet listed had permission from Lucas and everyone prospered from the deal.
    How much money did Salinger get from this BS unauthorized sequel by some hack nobody? Oh right, nothing...

    "A pirate is at work building a critical reputation and probably some coin without half as much creativity or labor as Caulfield's inventor."
    -----------------------

    Exactly.

    "Here a shock to Technodirt readers: writing well requires more than typing."
    -----------------------

    Good luck trying to get that point across! At TechDirt, all you need to be considered an author is a pirated word processing program.


    "Collectively, all of these little acts of interpretation and meaning-making are what make a given piece of art significant for the
    culture as a whole. We are co-creators of art."
    ---------------------

    Oh man, such collectivist tripe...

    Nothing exists in a vacuum! We are all standing on the backs of giants in regard to everything! Does that mean nobody should have property? You owe the land you live on to your forebears who braved it's initial wilderness. That means we are all collectively the co-owners of your house! I'm coming over tomorrow night, please have dinner ready at six (for free of course) as we are all the co-harvesters of nature's bounty! Right? And how could you deny anyone anything that basically amounts to nothing more than a bunch of swirling electrons? Why, you'd have to be a soulless property tyrant nazi to think those swirling elections are worth more than their sum!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 2:23am

    Re: Personal Privacy is Intangible

    Nothing. So long as you don't try to make money off it while giving the creator you're ripping off exactly zilch.

    Yup. Shakespeare. Dirty rotten thief, huh?

    Ok. Credibility shot to hell... no wonder you won't say who you are. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 18th, 2009 @ 5:17am

    Re: Re: Personal Privacy is Intangible

    Oooo! Shakespeare did it hundreds of years ago, so we should all do it now.

    What wonderful logic there Mike. Maybe you should call the blog "sheepdirt"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 6:56am

    Re: troll much?

    Trolling? no just pointing out an interesting way that the Music industry handles this particular issue.

    The length of copyright is an entirely different issue and I completely agree it's been pushed into abusive territory. We weren't talking about copyright length...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Travis (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 9:10am

    If you want to be creating, create your own characters, your own settings, and your own circumstances. Using someone else's is just not very creative at all. You should take a look at the comic book Fables. It has a pretty unique twist on classic fables that are all in the public domain...but I suppose you would think it's not very creative at all. I can only imagine what Bill Willingham could do with some other characters that aren't in the Public Domain, like Mickey Mouse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Travis (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 9:12am


    Oooo! Shakespeare did it hundreds of years ago, so we should all do it now.

    What wonderful logic there Mike. Maybe you should call the blog "sheepdirt"?

    Wow now you're just being childish. I don't think very many people could argue that what Shakespeare did was not creative or beneficial to our culture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re:

    And tell it to the copyright enthusiasts at Disney who used nothing but existing characters AND storylines for nearly all their early blockbusters.

    When they added screenplay, script, animation, choreography, etc, apparently according to AC, they weren't creating or adding any value.

    Rudyard who?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Because Disney

    damn, and you beat me to it. Well, my comment above "built and added" on yours by mentioning Kipling. Sigh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 11:26am

    Re:

    "90% of the creativity in it happened in the creation of the original characters, settings, and situations"

    The very common perception you have is consistent with all big businesses that can claim rights to a franchise. Microsoft makes zillions off of the dominance of Windows, Rowling makes cake off of ownership of Potter, etc.

    But what is so seldom recognized is that the value in these brands, these rights, these canons is conferred upon the brand by the fans that have invested in reading, installing, learning the material. You see, people have a limited appetite for 'stuff'. Learning new stories and characters is hard. It's easier to just follow the existing franchises that we already know. Change is resisted, new things are feared and rejected.

    I think this is a negative characteristic of humans, but it is real. Some of the effects are: the fascination with celebrity (we prefer to see familiar actors in films, rather than unknowns with more talent). Racism is a reaction to things that are different. My kids prefer stories with known characters, like Little Mermaid spin-offs over better content with unknown characters. They are invested in Ariel. Humans are, by design, drawn to familiarity.

    So if the first Harry Potter book is good, and millions read it, and become invested in it, then we (as an audience) now confer upon the brand the value it holds. Rowling *could have* written absolute shit as a follow-up and still had a NYT best-seller. We don't want another set of characters and settings, we want more of these characters but in new situations. But (with copyright and trademark) there is only one place we can get it...Rowling is our pusher.

    Perhaps under the current system, she's earned that right. But my point is that she now has an unfair advantage (against any book of new characters) that is conferred to the Potter brand BY US, not by her ongoing output. We're hooked on Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Dumbledore. In a sense, we all "own" these characters, as they are just ideas. And if she didn't want to share them, why were they published and sold in the first place? I fairly bought my knowledge of Harry Potter's world...don't I even own the resulting ideas in my head?

    You suggest that authors should be forced to write about new characters, in order to, in turn, force readers to "think past the ends of their noses". Forcing the customer is not generally a good way to increase the audience. But if you're right, why does that not apply to Rowling, too? Under your logic, new characters support the greater good, so copyright should also be designed to force Rowling to abandon Potter after book 1, and get creative with new characters.

    end rambling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: creativity?

    Stop thinking of it as 'using the original author's characters as a starting point.'

    And start thinking of it as 'using a set of characters that the general public knows and enjoys as a starting point.'

    It's about connecting with the audience in a way they want, NOT about taking something away from the original author. The original book will probably fare better as a result, and the original author is still free to compete in the marketplace with subsequent work.

    A derivative author is not "stealing" the author's characters, but is giving the audience a new story that they want. S/he is building on something the audience has, not something the original author has.

    Except that in an IP-centric world, the author apparently owns all the consumer's familiarity, appreciation, and attachment to fictional characters. How they own things inside my brain is unclear to me, but so it is.

    "Copy right law is fostering creativity here by encouraging original ideas"

    If so, then shouldn't the law also force Rowling to stop writing Potter novels? No. When people become tired of this franchise, then new ones will emerge. Think of sitcoms. M*A*S*H lasted a long time. There were many writers of the show, but all used the same characters and setting. It ran its course, used up some of the better storylines, and came to an end. There are always plenty of pilots to potentially replace it. Would it be better if every TV show had only one episode, then the next week, we had new characters, new settings, blah, blah?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Authority and One True Way

    Amen.

    I would like my comments above to be taken in the context of what you have written, and build off of it (not even joking).

    The interpretation of the work, the connection to the fictional characters that is in the audience's brain, cannot and should not be said to be "owned" by the author. It is as much mine as theirs. If they wanted to keep it, then they should have kept their story a secret, and never told nor sold a copy of their book.

    If a derivative author wants to address me as a potential reader, and chooses to use characters that I have interpreted and stored into memory, then I wish them free to do so, and then their work judged on its merit. Their contributions (good or bad) will only augment the value of the original work. If good, it will generate interest and add value to the original story. If bad, the original will be better by comparison.

    If the original author wishes to continue to write about the characters, then they are encouraged to do so and compete in a free marketplace of fictional stories, characters, and ideas. There is an incentive to create, and more overall creation will take place.

    Sadly, what will be lost is the ability to create a franchise with a good first book, and lock it down for way too long. We'll also lose the ability for an author to milk a good first book by selling out with inferior sequels. Such a pity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 18th, 2009 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: HA!

    Sir,

    For someone commenting on the definition of creativity, you seem to have very little understanding of it.

    Rodin sculpted The Thinker. But he did not develop characters in that work, from scratch. In fact, it would seem that he did not qualify for your definition of creativity. I mean, the doofus just chiseled out some model who was standing right in front of him, right.

    And what about @W#$@ Van Gogh?!! That lame-o just drew a pot of yellow flowers! And Oliver Stone! Just makes movies based on stories that someone else created in the real world.

    No, sir. Not a drop of creativity among them. And thanks to you for an iron-clad definition of creativity...something so elusive as to have evaded definition for eons, but you, sir, have nailed it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 18th, 2009 @ 3:29pm

    Re:

    It certainly isn't as creative as writing their own from scratch.

    Difference between making your own pasta sauce and buying a pre-made in the store, adding a dash of pepper, and calling it home made.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Jeffrey Nonken, Aug 18th, 2009 @ 8:38pm

    Re: Re:

    "Don't you mean 'the author and his decedents (who had nothing to do with the original works) get the sole right to use the material as they see fit?'"

    It's not the author, it's the copyright owner. If they happen to be the same, sure. But who owns the copyrights to Disney movies? Why, the Disney company, of course. The author and his or her descendants won't see a plugged nickle past whatever is in their contract.

    ...Depends on the movie, of course, but I think you get the idea.

    Same with music: the typical contract gives the rights to ASCAP or something. The artist collects money until his contract is up, if he's lucky. But somebody else owns the copyright and gets to collect if the recording keeps selling.

    Always keep that in mind, especially when arguing the pros and cons of extended copyright. Who benefits? The copyright owner -- who is NOT necessarily the author or heirs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Gregory, Aug 19th, 2009 @ 3:35am

    Hmm... postmodernism at work here, I see

    Geof and Derek Kerton seem to believe that once an author has released his/her work into the public by publishing it, he/she no longer has control over how this work is then 'interpreted' by the public, and that the public is free to understand it however they wish - the author wanting to control how they understand his/her work infringes upon their freedom.

    Perfect explanation of deconstruction. And perfectly wrong.

    Language, whether oral or written, is designed to allow the transmission of a particular concept or idea. The story of the 3 little pigs and the Big Bad Wolf will forever mean that the pig who built with brick was a smart pig and the Big Bad Wolf is evil/bad, and no amount of 'deconstruction' is going to twist that meaning into suddenly finding that after all, the wolf (who was actually a husky) was just trying to avoid starvation, and that the 3rd pig was selfish for not allowing the wolf to eat him as well.

    I as a creative person write a book wherein humans are the only intelligent species in the universe, organised into an intergalactic empire, with unlimited energy supply and a populace at peace. I flesh out my universe with a back story, a culture, characters and character development, and other such details. And oh, by the way because I'm homophobic I make everyone straight. This is a feature of my universe. So, you then make a 'derivative' work that takes *all* of my creation, and then tweak it so that everyone is gay instead. Call it what you want, but that's plainly pissing on my work and farting in my face.

    I am not saying sequels can't be written. But seriously, copyright is supposed to provide a framework whereby if you do stuff to *my* 'baby', I should have some say in shaping how you do it.

    Let's be honest; that's how GPL works. It uses copyright law and provides certain rights as well as restrictions. The balance should be in that way - if you want to make a new work based in someone else's framework, you should be free to do so... but only if, canonically speaking, you adhere to certain ground rules. Be true to the spirit and the letter of the original work, and the author's intent, so to speak.

    And if you cannot, then change the setting and make it explicit. This is why I don't have a problem with Warhammer 40K and Starcraft - it really is obvious where the impetus for Starcraft came from, but it doesn't even pretend it's Warhammer, so no harm no foul.


    WRT copyrights though: only humans should be assigned them. Not 'persons', but humans. Not Trusts, Institutions, Corporations, Partnerships, Proprietorships or whatever. Actual human beings who live and die. That should cut out a lot of this rubbish.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This