GOP fires author of copyright reform paper

But it's pretty terrible for Khanna -- what a shabby way of dealing with dissent within your ranks.

No, it is not absurd. A writer can spend ten years writing a book, living in dire poverty the entire time. He can live in abject isolation and lose his health, he can sustain permanent physical and emotional damage from trying to bring one book or piece of music to life. If the work later becomes acknowledged as a masterpiece, of course he and his heirs should have the right to benefit from his unique gifts and his extraordinary sacrifices.

I hadn't even thought of copyright as a socialistic concept until Arthalion had mentioned it, but I'm inclined to think he's right, especially after your explanation.

The hypothetical writer you describe is a "taker", seeking government welfare in the form of a perpetual protection of his one idea. I don't feel sympathy for such an artist who has put all his effort in his art to the detriment of his basic needs, for the same reason I don't feel sympathy for young athletes who are banking on becoming the next great professional athlete in their chosen sport -- the odds of a "big break" for both are pretty small. You need to have a marketable skill as a fallback.

If an artist wants to use his art as his livelihood, he needs to continue to create. I would point to someone like James Michener as one example of someone who has done this properly. He wrote his Tales of the South Pacific, and when that was successful he poured his royalties back into his writing, so that he could continue producing successful works of writing. Even under the old copyright laws, he would have been able to make a fine livelihood because he kept creating.

The old copyright protections gave a reasonable amount of time for the artist to produce another work without the fear of starving in the meantime. 42 years (28+14) is plenty. The reason why heirs benefiting perpetually is absurd is because they undermine the basic principle: granting the heirs that privilege doesn't forward the promotion of arts and sciences (unless, of course, they create something THEMSELVES, and get a copyright or patent of their own).

Beyond this, masterpieces become such by virtue of being widely known -- they enter into the common good, a common societal patrimony that in turn promotes other ideas. As such, they should and must belong to everyone -- perpetual copyright prevents that from happening. Likewise, any degree of copyright stifles some creativity, thus there are "fair use" provisions that even supersede copyright under certain specific circumstances.

The example you cite shows that you are not informed about art. James Michener is about as far from art as you can get, without owning a hardware store.
You say that you don’t sympathize with artists who sacrificed and didn’t provide for their livelihoods. Guess what, that’s what art is - a creation from the soul, combined with a unique gift from God that comes through the artist - who uses the years of rigorous training and discipline in his field to create. It can take a decade or even a lifetime to bring forth a masterpiece.
In this discussion, the socialist is....you! Because it is the socialists who argue against exceptionalism, it is the socialists who are against private ownership and the concept of property, the socialists who say that art belongs to everybody.
This has been an illuminating experience for me, because it has shown that when it comes to the arts, the pernicious philistinism of the left and the right is the same. The only difference is that they want to sack the Vatican of its art to sell it off for “the poor” and melt down all its gold of the Renaissance and Baroque masters to use as money, and the philistines on the left, ignorant of Van Gogh and others who dedicated their entire lives to expressing a new vision and dimension of art - those philistines want to allow minimal protection so that corporate asshats who can’t paint or write can make millions manufacturing cartoons

writing from my phone, ran out of room - to continue:
those philistines want to allow minimal protection so that corporate asshats who can’t paint or write can make millions manufacturing cartoon versions, placemats, plastic dolls, towels, jingles, soundtracks for porn movies, etc. using the work that cost the soul’s blood of an artist who brought a new sound, new way of seeing color, new form of narrative at the cost of his sanity and his life.
But wait, there is one difference between the philistinism of the left and the right - even though they both devalue the unique and transcendent gift of the artist, even the most depraved, corrupt and murderous communist would not cite James Michener as an example of an artist.

Fine, so I chose a poor example. I chose Michener because I was speaking with friends recently and he was fresh in my mind as a writer who had made his livelihood through his writing -- the quality or lack of quality of his "art" is moot. Others who made that livelihood through their art can be found.

You say that you don’t sympathize with artists who sacrificed and didn’t provide for their livelihoods. Guess what, that’s what art is - a creation from the soul, combined with a unique gift from God that comes through the artist - who uses the years of rigorous training and discipline in his field to create. It can take a decade or even a lifetime to bring forth a masterpiece.

Art as a creation from the soul is not mutually exclusive from being able to make enough money to feed yourself and your family. Maybe, just maybe that means you can't focus ALL your attention on it unless you're independently wealthy. Sorry... that's life. Yes, I suppose I am telling you that if you're a "starving artist" that you need to cut your hair and get a job. Because it is the socialists who argue against exceptionalism, it is the socialists who are against private ownership and the concept of property, the socialists who say that art belongs to everybody.

The founding fathers didn't give a hoot about your right to own intellectual property! Again, the protections on intellectual property stem from a desire to promote the arts and sciences and nothing more -- reasonable protections ensured this goal. The original provisions, and even the 1831 law do this in a sufficient manner.

Incidentally, this is the reason why foreign works weren't protected under US copyright law initially -- there was no concern to protect anything except where it ensured innovation in America. The only reason we care about it now is for the sake of reciprocity -- so Americans are encouraged to innovate even in a global economy.

You accuse me of being against "private ownership and the concept of property" -- that is quite false. I am all for the just remuneration of artists for the work that they have put forward for the world. However, I don't see perpetual ownership to be "just remuneration".

If I really believed in the socialist concept of property, I would deny any concept of remuneration or rights to IP - but I would also encourage that artists be government subsidized.

Yes, that might mean ultimately mean that "corporate asshats" make millions on something that they didn't create. But they really aren't removed from the "corporate asshats" that continue to make money into perpetuity because they are lobbying to "protect" and make money from art that THEY didn't create either.

P.S. More than once you have spoken about an artist working at "the cost of his sanity and his life". You should probably take it easy -- because you seem like you're losing your grip on at least the sanity part.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.