*The writer walks to the center of the stage carrying a rather silly looking soapbox covered in drawings of magic bubbles and bearing the word “soap” in large stenciled letters, which he places on the floor at his feet.*
A while back I wrote a short piece here about Ursula K. LeGuin’s open letter on copyright infringement with regards to a story reprinted on boingboing.net by Cory Doctorow. Cory has since removed the document and posted a public apology, which is a mater of good manners, and I applaud him for doing so.
In my original entry, I expressed my admiration of Miss LeGuin for going after someone she felt had copied her work illegally. I stand behind that statement. I am in the unfortunate position of having to do the same thing at the moment, and it’s a fairly daunting task. (but I’ll cover that in the next entry.) Miss LeGuin fought for her right to choose where her material could and could not be published, and that is her prerogative. I’m glad that in the end everything worked out,though I understand there are still some ill feelings involved. To paraphrase Cory Doctorow:
… Since then, I’ve worked through mutual friends to convey this to Ms Le Guin. My understanding is that she is unsatisfied and remains upset with me.
The fact is, mistakes happen. Misunderstanding happen. It’s human nature. As long as people show enough respect to the original authors in these cases, the issues can and usually are, resolved amicably. My issue on copyright goes far beyond this type of incident.
But there are people on the other side of this issue as well. Initially I had posted on this subject simply to alert the writing community, or at least the part of it that sails into this little port on the Internet Sea, of what was happening. Following that, I promptly moved on to other matters. (The ones involved in putting food on my table.)
I was a bit surprised to receive a comment on the original article some 36 days later that stated the following:
UrsulaKLeguin is worng. Copyright excess are too bad. Free culture.
Fortunately I Haven’t read any of her books, never will.
I’ll use my time on more clever authors.
The only thing UKL has spread is: copyright is bad for culture, her letter, and this case is a perfect lesson on this.
*The writer steps up onto the soapbox before him.*
Copyright is bad for culture… It’s an interesting theory in an idealogical and rather Utopian liberal kind of way. Unfortunately this comment simply proves that most of the voices in the chant against copyright have no real idea of what they are talking about. If you think I’m being heavy handed or unfair, I’m not.
Let’s break down the information we get from this one comment.
This person first states that Miss LeGuin is wrong. I might even be willing to listen to the reason they felt that this was so. Unfortunately, they didn’t give one. They have given an opinion, not an argument.
The next two “sentences” aren’t even coherent English, but let’s see if I can get something out of them.
“Copyright excess are too bad.”
Apparently this person thinks that Miss LeGuin is enforcing her rights to excess. Either that or that copyright infringement is “just too bad”.
If the former is the case, it works like this. She wrote it. By the laws of the U.S. She has the right to say who may and who may not publish the piece so long as she has not signed publication rights away. Period.
If the latter is the case, then I wonder what this person will be reading if he or she gets their way? You’re not exactly going to have a lot of bookstores if everyone is busy republishing the same piece of work in their own name. Nor are there going to be many professional writers if they can’t get paid for their work. It’s simple economics.
The idea that people would continue to publish works with no way to be compensated for it is at best, Utopian, at worst socialistic, no matter what, it’s idyllic. Are we supposed to pay writers a subsidy? Just place “writer” in your employment form, go home and collect the money…” No thanks. I prefer talented authors on my shelves. Those come about because they were good enough to make money at what they were doing. Take away copyright, you’ve taken away the incentive. Do you have a new one to offer?
Next they move on to say:
Fortunately I Haven’t read any of her books, never will.
I’ll use my time on more clever authors.
This is the same argument I get out of my six year old son when I try to feed him something new. every parent in the world has heard it. It is a juvenile response to change. So I’ll give you the same answer that I give my son.
“How do you know you don’t like it if you’ve never tried it?”
As for the second part of this statement, you may feel free to spend your time on “more clever authors”. May I suggest Dr. Seuss and perhaps the works of Stan Lee? both have nice large pictures that will help you to visualize the story.
Personally, I’ll go back and read “The Lathe of Heaven” at least once more, the tale disturbs me on many levels,but in the end miss LeGuin leaves me feeling hopeful. And, dear commenter, if you were not aware, that particular book has been turned into a motion picture. Then of course there are the EarthSea books. Gripping from end to end. Also a motion picture. Translated into 16 languages and still flying off the shelves today, more than 20 years after they were originally written.
The final assertion of the comment:
The only thing UKL has spread is: copyright is bad for culture, her letter, and this case is a perfect lesson on this.
Miss LeGuin’s letter is a very unfortunate and necessary airing of dirty laundry. The matter could have been handled quietly and resolved without issue, but as was discussed by Mr. Doctorow, there were many failures of communication. At no point does Miss LeGuin’s letter prove that copyright is bad for culture. In fact, much of culture is built on the knowledge that “what’s mine is mine”. Civil liberties are drawn from this premise, as are individual property rights. Copyright is simply an extension of these things.
Mr. Doctorow apologized for infringing on Miss LeGuin’s rights. I can pretty much guarantee that he would fight for the reprint rights of his own works. (of which I’ve only read a bit, but what I’ve read, I like.) The fact that Mr. Doctorow was willing to apologize, even with caveats, is proof that culture is alive and well. It’s still fueling the inter workings of the people who do culturally important things.
Just like manners lubricate the gears of society.
So please, if you choose to disagree, do so with a bit of thought. You might just catch me in a better mood.
And just in case anyone is wondering. the right to use the comments left on this site is granted under “my” copyright. The fact that I did not publish a name or any other information is simply that I wanted to make a point, not necessarily a personal attack. It’s not this one person I’m irritated with in this case, it’s a much larger group that share the same mindset. If you’re going to have a battle cry, know why you’re yelling it!
*The writer steps solemnly from the soapbox, retrieves it from the stage floor and exits, stage right.*