J.G. Ballard Dies at Age 78 162
jefu writes "J.G. Ballard, an author (of science fiction and other fiction) has died. His works include some of the strangest and most compelling novels ever, including 'The Crystal World,' 'Crash' and 'The Atrocity Exhibition.' For a truly weird read, try his 'Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race," compared with Alfred Jarry's "The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race.'" Here is Ballard's obituary at the BBC.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they should not be nullified upon death. What if the author dies a day after his work is first published? The publisher still has to pay their bills. Copyright should be restored to its original condition as laid down by the founding fathers; 14 years is more than fair in this day and age.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve. Funerals are expensive too. Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything, but seeing as how many authors are broke most of their life, I'm sure he would just be ok with his family getting nothing. I mean, the guys not even in the ground yet and suddenly his life's work should be free? Your logic fails me. I could see maybe like 10 to 20 years or something, but jeez, copyright exists for a period of time after death for a whole bunch of reasons.
Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are the type of guy that all those unimaginative books and series are made for? Where every goddamn alien looks like a human with some patch on his nose and an unusual haircut, and you can see stranger things on underwater nature tv shows. Where they are in the future and/or in space, and do the same boring shit that they could do in a historic novel. And where you just think: "My god, this is all the futuristic stuff you can come up with?"
No offense. If you like it, be happy. :)
But I for one, just wonder why you read sci-fi then? If the weird futuristic stuff does not matter, and you even dislike it...?
I know that many people create a false dichotomy, that goes like this: Well, the story matters. Not all the weird things.
But in reality, nothing stops you from writing a good story that also includes the weirdest things. In fact there is no reason why that should not add something to it.
"Truely weird in a futuristic way" is the very point of sci-fi, in my eyes. (Good stories are what I expect in any genre anyway, and does not need being specially mentioned.)
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:5, Insightful)
14 years is excessive, as improved distribution methods mean more people can access the work soon after publication than was possible when copyright was originally designed. Additionally, improved communications technology increases the pace of meme distribution, and as a great deal of value of a copyrighted work is in the novel social interactions it enables this shortens its time of highest value.
An automatic copyright of 5 years, with an extension of another 5 years available on paying a several thousand dollar fee sounds reasonable.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't mean those reasons are right. Copyright shouldn't allow someone to collect forever for working once. And it really shouldn't be relied on as a gift to for their family after death. If I die my family doesn't luck into some extra cash because from users of the network and computers I support.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything
I'd rather put money in the bank while I was alive rather than leave them at the mercy of the society's interest in my works. Copyright is NOT supposed to be a life insurance.
An even better solution would be to tie copyright to first publication date instead of the author's death date. For instance, it would be MUCH easier to determine whether a given book is in the public domain, because the first impression's publication date is usually printed on the second page. The authors' death dates on the other hand may be unobtainable, especially for obscure works.
I mean, the guys not even in the ground yet and suddenly his life's work should be free?
The guy's family did not write the things that were under copyright. Giving them money for someone else's work will not cause them to create more, which is supposed to be the purpose of copyright. It may be cruel not to give money to a family in mourning, but this is what life insurance is for.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:2, Insightful)
When it comes to selling rights to publishers, movie studios or other corporations; then I am for much stronger legislation. If an author sells rights to a someone else then those rights should become public domain after a certain number of predefined years not exceeding a maximum number of years (say fifteen years or so).
Perhaps this is a bit simplistic and something a bit more detailed and robust is needed. All I can say is that at the moment copyright law, and the means used by large entities like Disney, are perhaps not in the best interest of the consumer, the artist and society in general. It is a serious subject that requires serious deliberation and debate; however at the moment most seem to show disinterest and large economic entities are allowed to deal as they very well please.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't, mostly because I see no reason why you should keep getting a check for something you did 15 years ago. Surely you could have produced something new by then?
Yes, you could retire and live off the royalties, and it'd be great. But why should copyright be special that way? In other jobs, you set aside money for retirement. Do that with copyright -- set aside money for retirement, then you won't be penniless when your works expire.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no reason why you should keep getting a check for something you did 15 years ago
Mainly because that assumes that whatever I created spontaneously jumped out of my mind one day 15 years prior.
The large majority of things that this covers would take time to make that people aren't being paid for, e.g. books/music. If it takes you a large amount of unpaid time to write something, why shouldn't you get paid for that time after you wrote it?
As far as I'm concerned, it balances itself out, and I feel 15 years isn't so long it's ridiculous, but not so short it ceases before your work's popularity dies out. Maybe a shorter term would be better, but I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert.
Re:For those with ebook readers (Score:3, Insightful)
You're aware that most book writers are little guys who hardly can even make a living out of it and wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the hope that their work could benefit them and their family durably?
If they do it for the "hope that their work would benefit them and their family durably", then they are fucking stupid. As you say, most can hardly even make a living out of it. Yet they still do it, and they still did it BEFORE copyright even existed. Even today, people still write to self-publish AT A COST with no hope of even recouping the printing cost.
My contention is that the number of people who write primarily because they hope for a major monetary reward is vanishingly small. Even those that dream of being able to even live off their writing is likely a small minority.