But quoting, sampling, retelling, reframing etc – what if I don’t want the thing I’ve created quoted, sampled, retold, or reframed? If I’ve created it, don’t I have that right? Or is that the moral right mentioned earlier, separate from copyright?
Besides which, copyright applies not just to “creative” works, but also to non-fiction. I think of my grandmother, who after a lot of learning and hard work, wrote a textbook for English language teaching and learning. Her textbook was widely used in China, but she received no royalties for its use there because they didn’t have copyright law. She saw the irony in it, having been an ardent communist in her youth, but she would have quite liked to have had the royalties.
Maybe I just have to think about it some more. I certainly don’t know much about the extent of copyright.
I understand people’s frustrations at things being dropped out of print. But the effort that went into making that thing doesn’t go away. My mother’s had a few books published. Writing them them took years and stress and angst. They’ve now been out of print for 30 years. But my mum’s finances are pretty tight, and if someone was able to just come along and reprint them and sell them without her getting any reward for all her work, just because they’d been out of print for a while, I’d think that was pretty rude. Sometimes I’ve thought it could be fun to make a new book based on one of her books, but with additional chapters or sections from the point of view of another character in the book. But if I wrote and published that, and made money from it, and all that money went to me and none to her, that would feel wrong too.
To me, a creative work isn’t just a lightbulb going off in someone’s head. It’s the result of work and maybe study and investment of time and possibly money in developing the skills and aesthetic sense to create the thing that has the copyright. The person who comes along and copies that thing is getting the benefit of all those skills and training and hard work, without the person who developed them getting any reward. That’s exploitation. It’s like having someone work for you without paying them. And it doesn’t stop being exploitation just because a lot of time has gone by since you did the work.
So yeah, still not quite getting it.
I'm not sure I completely understand the issue. Just because things are still under copyright, doesn't mean you can't see them, or hear them, or read them. It just means you might have to pay someone for the privilege (or get them from the library).
To be topical - if I'd written a stirring piece of music, I might want to be sure that the Act Party, or its future equivalent, couldn't ever use that piece of music in the background of one of its advertisements. You can argue that if I'm dead I won't care. But I don't think even my grandchildren should have to bear that.
I like Creative Commons, but there's a difference between that and the ability for others to use something you've created for their own profit or promotion. Copyright is, as far as I can see, the thing that allows a difference between these two outcomes.
You forgot the Twilight reference. That was what the Venturi orifice was referring to, right? Oh, wait, Twilight was Volturi, not Venturi. Now I don't know whether I'm mortified at having mentioned it, or relieved that at least it didn't sink in enough for me to remember properly.
As you were, nothing to see here, move along.
Yep. My interest in the Labour Party just died a little further.
I may be being unfair. I don't know much about Andrew Little. But nothing he's said has inspired me so far.
Don’t have earthquakes yet.
That's what Christchurch thought. And even if you don't... volcanoes!
Indeed. That, in combination with the fact we live in Wellington (and are therefore quake-prone) is why we challenged our last RV as too low. Yes, we pay more rates, but I consider that akin to insurance.
Blurgh for typos (trust me, I loathe “learnings” as much as the next writer’s daughter) and short edit windows. That was meant to say “learning”.
For those interested in learnings from research on intentional communities, there's also this:
Skip to page 225 if you just want the findings. Similar stuff to what Larisa Webb found, as far as I can recall.
Also, Watchmystreet is not up to date. It has the old 2009 valuation for our house, and says the valuation hasn't changed. We challenged our 2012 valuation, which meant the value went up for both the 2009 and 2012 valuations.
It's pre-electronic, unfortunately, but if anyone's in Auckland and wants to have a look at the University copy (or wants to do an interloan from elsewhere), it's Webb, Larisa, 1999. Living together? : change and continuity of a New Zealand intentional community. MA Thesis, University of Auckland. Library listing here. And I'll ask her if she happens to have an electronic copy at all.