Cope and Copyright

[JBI]

In light of the reinforcing of forum rules, and the bringing up of the subject of this article, I thought it would be benefical to discuss this issue, as I feel it is central to poetry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview14


Personally, I find her work offensive, and somewhat destructive when it comes to literature.

Just a little background, the first copyright in what we call the "west" came about in 1710 in England, in reference to printed works. However, it is important to add, that poetry has been written for longer than we can tell, and until recently, memorizing poetry was seen as a central aspect to experiencing it.

But the question really that plagues me, is who really benefits from copyright, and how can a work truly be original? We are obsessed with the personality of authors, but really, they steal bits from everywhere, they appreciate others works, they discuss them, use them, build upon them.

So what then is wrong with sharing and enjoying poetry, as that seems the point?

And the answer, simply who gets paid. Historically, it seems rich patrons were the supporters of artists - the nobility, essentially the governors, or rich patrons, but for poetry, that seems to be over, as people rule, and we are capitalist, but it brings up a question, who really owns the rights of these poems, and isn't the sharing of poetry the most important thing?

What's with this selfishness then? Where is the author's real integrity, where she sees her work as purely a product, and somehow nothing more. OK, it makes sense that people shouldn't profit off her works, but should they not enjoy them? Is it perhaps a problem with the system we have now, which forces poetry to become a commercial item, instead of something beyond that?

[Virgil]

JBI that link does not take me to anything. It says "Sorry we have not been able to serve the page you asked for."

I guess you're questioning the validity of copywright laws. Well how is an author supposed to make a living if it can be published by anyone and he not being compensated? Why would anyone even right?

You argue:

But the question really that plagues me, is who really benefits from copyright, and how can a work truly be original? We are obsessed with the personality of authors, but really, they steal bits from everywhere, they appreciate others works, they discuss them, use them, build upon them.
This is no different from technlogy being patented. Everything builds on antecedants, but the new thing is still an original idea. In fact with some patents a non-technical person may not be able to identify what is original about it, the distinction being subtle. Eliot's The Waste Land has lots of allusions and even quoting of phrases from other poets, but my God that's an original work at its core.


Is it perhaps a problem with the system we have now, which forces poetry to become a commercial item, instead of something beyond that?
I guess a poet can electrnically put their work out on the internet these days. I guess any poet can waive their rights but why should a publishing house spend the money to print him? They need to cover their expenses and make a profit. Life is not free. Even under communism.

Who benefits from copywright laws? Society, because if there were no profit to be made, there would be very few writers writing.

[JBI]

Fixed, sorry

[JBI]

JBI that link does not take me to anything. It says "Sorry we have not been able to serve the page you asked for."

I guess you're questioning the validity of copywright laws. Well how is an author supposed to make a living if it can be published by anyone and he not being compensated? Why would anyone even right?

You argue:

This is no different from technlogy being patented. Everything builds on antecedants, but the new thing is still an original idea. In fact with some patents a non-technical person may not be able to identify what is original about it, the distinction being subtle. Eliot's The Waste Land has lots of allusions and even quoting of phrases from other poets, but my God that's an original work at its core.


I guess a poet can electrnically put their work out on the internet these days. I guess any poet can waive their rights but why should a publishing house spend the money to print him? They need to cover their expenses and make a profit. Life is not free. Even under communism.

Who benefits from copywright laws? Society, because if there were no profit to be made, there would be very few writers writing.

Here's a better question - had Housman still had copyright, would he have had the ability to sue her?

Artists need to be paid, but lets be honest, they don't make much per book, and quite simply, you cannot stop the sharing of artwork. People can lend books to their friends, recite poetry to people they know, or simply, memorize. Why then, should the poets themselves stop people from appreciating their art?

Well, I think it is understandable when you are Cope, a poet without really an imagination, or much skill, whose work seems only written for cash, but don't many artists get money from the government?

What I'm getting at, is really a question of government's role in supporting the arts. Who really owns poetry? The publishers, the poet? these are all questions, and quite simply the current copyright system cannot work. Elvis himself became huge from ripping off underprivileged African American musician's work, who got virtually no credit.

[Virgil]

Let me just start, I'm completly sympathetic to her argument. Writers don't make much but they should make what they can. They paid for their education. They took the time to study and hone their craft. They spent time on their work.


Here's a better question - had Housman still had copyright, would he have had the ability to sue her?

Not sure how that works so I'll skip any comment on it.


Artists need to be paid, but lets be honest, they don't make much per book, and quite simply, you cannot stop the sharing of artwork. People can lend books to their friends, recite poetry to people they know, or simply, memorize. Why then, should the poets themselves stop people from appreciating their art?
Well, it's their choice. I assume that if they and the publisher so wished they could waive whatever rights they have.


Well, I think it is understandable when you are Cope, a poet without really an imagination, or much skill, whose work seems only written for cash, but don't many artists get money from the government?
Some do. But I don't think it's all that many. But frankly I am against any government spending on arts. Who is to say what is worthwhile and when can we say it truely is worthy? And who makes those decisions? No I think like most things government should keep their nose out. One qualification, I do think government should fund cultural events such as something that has become a classic, like a mozart concert or a native tradition dance or something of that nature.


What I'm getting at, is really a question of government's role in supporting the arts. Who really owns poetry? The publishers, the poet? these are all questions, and quite simply the current copyright system cannot work. Elvis himself became huge from ripping off underprivileged African American musician's work, who got virtually no credit.
Well, the publisher and the poet come to some contractual agreement. I've given you my feelings on government's role (frankly they should be funding me :D). The copywright system has been around a long time. Elvis may have varied african-american muscians (much like a historical novel varies on Scott) but ripped off is a strong word. In fact every novel is a variation on some other form, but it's still an original work. Every art comes from a historical tradition. I do think though the internet has posed many more issues with the copywrite system.

[JBI]

Here's the brilliance of the system though, aren't books available for free in libraries? Isn't that, in a way, government investment in the arts. I think Cope may be against people borrowing her books from libraries, but many poets are supportive of the fact, and in truth, the library is generally a very positive image coming from writers - some even comparing it to something akin to a church.

Government spending in the arts, of course, isn't too problematic to work out. If people have demand for the artwork, the government pays the artist. If, for instance, the government was the big publisher of everything, and, for instance, Printing on Demand occurred when people wanted a book, then the artist, potentially, could reap more money.

In truth, the problem seems to be that poetry cannot make money without someone funding it. I don't think poetry can even make money under the current system, even if you are T. S. Eliot. Yeats relied on his Nobel winnings, and his rich patroness, in addition to popular theatre works for money - he certainly didn't clean up writing verse.

So where then, is this audacity rooted? If someone, for instance, steals a guitar riff from another musician, the other musician can sue. What if someone steals a quote? Poets have been doing it all the time. I even read an article the other day about someone wanting to copyright chess moves.

The current system clearly doesn't work. People will share, and continue to share. That is what literature, especially poetry is about, conversation, communication, and interaction between people over time, and quite simply, enough work already is in the public domain, that one can spend one's whole life reading good poetry, without ever even needing to buy a book.

The current system clearly doesn't work. Virtually all poets writing today have some other source of income or money. What then, could work? In the past, it was rich patrons, or family inheritance/other jobs. Today?

I personally am thinking government needs to play a role, and give out money to artists based on their sales figures, or perhaps in a modern sense, the amount of people who appreciate their work. So, for instance, 1 million Canadians read a book by Erin Moure (yeah right, unlikely number), then the Canadian Government, who collects taxes from these 1million readers, could fork over some cash to the poet. This way, art is essentially equalized, and available for all, and yet the artist still can sustain herself.

This becomes even more tiring in times of digital culture, where the actual text perhaps is disappearing for a digital facsimile. If I memorize a poem, I can type it out 1000x times, yet technically, under the current law, I'd be breaking the law if I didn't own the book. Isn't that somewhat ridiculous?

Google now has just finished a deal agreement with publishers and copyright activists in America, to allow the birth of a purchase on demand digital book database, including all past, and many, many current publications. Certainly the current system of print is going out of fashion, and clearly redistribution needs to rethink the way artists get paid, assuming we want artists to survive.

As for Elvis, he merely ripped off the styles of music of underprivileged African Americans, who, because of the system in the States, could not possibly achieve the fame and financial success he did. The Rolling Stones did the same. How much money did Solomon Linda receive from the Lion King's use of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"?

[mayneverhave]

This becomes even more tiring in times of digital culture, where the actual text perhaps is disappearing for a digital facsimile. If I memorize a poem, I can type it out 1000x times, yet technically, under the current law, I'd be breaking the law if I didn't own the book. Isn't that somewhat ridiculous?

Google now has just finished a deal agreement with publishers and copyright activists in America, to allow the birth of a purchase on demand digital book database, including all past, and many, many current publications. Certainly the current system of print is going out of fashion, and clearly redistribution needs to rethink the way artists get paid, assuming we want artists to survive.

This seems of only secondary importance to the rest of your post, but I would argue that it is not clear that literature will continue on the trend of digitization - despite attempts by Google, Project Gutenberg (which is a great site) and the like.

The simple problem is that literary works are easier to read in print than on a computer screen. Even if we develop technology similar to those hand-held e-book machines, I'm not sure this is enough to offset the use of printed books.

While digitization is useful when it comes to something like films (I don't have to go out to rent a movie or buy it from the store, I can simply have it sent to my T.V.), I'm not sure this would work with literature.

The internet, in one regard, is extremely useful in literary study. If an author uses and allusion or references something that I do not already know, I can simply Google the words and find what is being referenced. Imagine annotating a work like Ulysses without the use of the internet - manually searching for each reference among thousands of books. There is no need to imagine, really, because Ulysses was annotated before the internet was invented.

As for the rest of your point, I agree - the author of the essay basically has no artistic sense and seems to view poetry as primarily a business endeavor. I never understood this approach. If one simply wants to make money, why choose to be a poet by occupation? Surely there is something more efficient method than producing things that are most likely unread by the majority of the population.

[JBI]

That isn't even where it stops though - you can buy cheap 3-4$ books from a Print on Demand press, that delivers in a few days. What happens, if, instead of printing books, books are printed on demand at a bookshop, in a matter of minutes? Amazon.Com is increasingly popular, what would happen if, instead of paying 20$ for a book, with 1$ going to the author, one paid 10$ with 7 going to the author? It's an interesting concept - the value of the book is determined by the book, yet the publishers create that value.

Without the tedium of laying out of print, and the birth of digitalization, it has become possible to print books for much less, without the risk.

If what we are told by authors is true, and one needs really, now, to market their own work, unless they are some sort of sensationalist writer, then it seems the practice of publisher-artist is becoming troubled. Vizetelly brought about the same revolution at the end of the last century, with the removal of the lending libraries from the publishing equation. The market needs to adapt, and it seems more profitable for the artist, that they find new methods of advertising their works, as publishers today don't seem to be doing that anyway.

The market is changing super-quickly. $30 for a book doesn't even seem worth it anymore, if you could give the author the same profit, yet manage to get a $5 copy.

[~Sophia~]

I think copyright is the simple difference between ownership and plagiarism. Leonard Cohen wrote it (song or poem) or Joe Blow's new rap version. Share, enjoy, critique, explore, quote the work all you like. Just remember to credit the true author.

[mayneverhave]

I think copyright is the simple difference between ownership and plagiarism. Share, enjoy, critique, explore, quote the work all you like. Just remember to credit the true author.

That's fine, but the issue (at least as discussed here), is not just the proper attribution of the author's name to his work, but that the author is rewarded monetarily. I can quote Cope all I want and then stick her name at the end of it to give her the credit, but I would not be paying her to use her poem, and that is what is up for discussion here.

[~Sophia~]

Copyright does not guarantee monetary gain. It guarantees authoritarian credit.


Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but doesn't prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they're not copies or adaptations of Disney's mouse. In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses (See Fair Use, Fair Dealing). However, other laws — such as trademark and patent law — may impose additional restrictions that copyright does not.

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer but, I believe there is a limit to monetary gain for the sharing of an idea. Does a painter charge each time a painting is viewed, discussed, critiqued, appreciated? I'm not a lawyer and this is obviously way out of my league but, I think there is a "common sense" distinction between copyright infringement and example. Besides, if we didn't discuss, highlight, endorse and otherwise expose these works, the authors might remain relatively unknown. I think it's a Catch 22.

[bluevictim]

Well how is an author supposed to make a living if it can be published by anyone and he not being compensated?
...
Who benefits from copywright laws? Society, because if there were no profit to be made, there would be very few writers writing.Your argument seems to assume that the only way for authors to be compensated for their work is through the copyright system. There are many ways for authors to be compensated for their work that do not require copyright laws. Given that the copyright laws are in place, of course, authors (publishers, really) that take advantage of the copyright laws have a competitive edge over authors that don't. But surely you recognize why that isn't a convincing argument in favor of copyright laws.

I find the concept of copyright rather silly. For someone who wants to keep the government out of the marketplace, your support of the copyright laws seems somewhat out of place.