News
Holding on to copyright
An opinion piece in the New York Times wonders why copyright should not flow from one generation to the next. "Were I tomorrow to write the great American novel (again?), 70 years after my death the rights to it, though taxed at inheritance, would be stripped from my children and grandchildren. To the claim that this provision strikes malefactors of great wealth, one might ask, first, where the heirs of Sylvia Plath berth their 200-foot yachts. And, second, why, when such a stiff penalty is not applied to the owners of Rockefeller Center or Wal-Mart, it is brought to bear against legions of harmless drudges who, other than a handful of literary plutocrats (manufacturers, really), are destined by the nature of things to be no more financially secure than a seal in the Central Park Zoo."
"Freeing" a literary work into the public domain is less a public benefit than a transfer of wealth from the families of American writers to the executives and stockholders of various businesses who will continue to profit from, for example, "The Garden Party," while the descendants of Katherine Mansfield will not.
See Also
Related
- Google chief dismisses criticism
- Methuen banks on Potter lawsuit success
- ALCS checks on EU ruling
- MySpace moves on copyright
- EU threatens Gowers line
Book news from the BBC
- Sentencing of page thief deferred
- Publisher cleared of embezzlement
- 'Ugly' author a 'liar and thief'
- 'Joe the Plumber' lands book deal
- Mother rejects child abuse memoir
Latest Comments
- I would love to talk to Oprah about Christ-- at Christmas----- call me...
- Very interesting idea...I saw something on amazon where you can download...
- as a customer I'm quite happy with the level of discounting (although it...
- The selection this year is pretty dire, I agree. Cookery books are dead in...
- More irksome pontifications by the luncheon club members at the BA who long...
RSS
Subscriber Content