The Valve - A Literary Organ | Is he not stupid?

<< Nabokov on Certain Postulates Concerning the Reality of the World | Front Page | Getting Lincoln Wrong: Ann Althouse, The New York Times, and the American Student >>

Monday, May 21, 2007

Is he not stupid?

Posted by John Holbo on 05/21/07 at 07:59 AM

Author of book entitled Winter’s Tale, explaining why, in an ideal world, no one should be able to write a book called that without getting sued. (Yes, of course you can’t copyright a title. But shouldn’t you be able to?)

And what of my title? Am I to be sued, ideally, because I am quoting from Shakespeare’s play, Winter’s Tale, Act III, scene iv - so far as I am aware, the first occurence of the phrase ‘is he not stupid?’ in world literature. Of course that’s fair use. But who decided that the government could force people to submit to all these ‘linguistic easements’ on their private property? Honestly. A little common sense, if you please. Property is property.

Everyone is shaking their head at this one. Still. It’s a wonder to behold. Thank goodness, this already exists, so I don’t need to do anything but point you to it.

Isn’t the NY Times a little embarrassed to publish this sort of stuff?

Comments

"Isn’t the NY Times a little embarrassed to publish this sort of stuff?“

Not embarrassed by that; but too embarrassed, according to this report, to publish the word ‘chickenshit’.

By Adam Roberts on 05/21/07 at 11:01 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Appalling and disgusting, that article was. I was hoping to see some discussion of it on academic blogs.

By Clancy on 05/21/07 at 11:10 AM | Permanent link to this comment

And the tide should flow the other way. Walmart and the energy companies and other corporations should be “put in the public domain,” so to speak, that is, be nationalized, or at least be run by the people who work there and by the communities in which they operate. That’s democracy. But of course the Times itself is not a democracy institution.

The New York Times Plan to Abolish America:
http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/the-new-york-times-plan-to-abolish-america/

By Tony Christini on 05/21/07 at 11:55 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I’d be interested to see if anybody comments here in favour of this crazy notion. The “Against perpetual copyright” article is interesting (there’s also, you know, about two thirds of Boing Boing on this topic). But Tony C. is onto something, I think, the hidden agenda here--that equating intellectual and other property rights and then arguing they should be held in perpetuity is a way of shoring up property rights. Instead of arguing, as the “Against perpetual copyright” piece does, that these are fundamentally different kinds of rights, we might want to say: actually, yes, these are the same kind of right, which in turn leads logically to the notion that you should be able to enjoy your wealth and physical property when you’re alive, but should surrender them to the common good when you die.

I think this would be a cool idea, speaking personally. Let’s say, 100% death duties, for instance; do away with Trustafarians and wealthy loungers, encourage people to work, to look after themselves, to become self reliant instead of relying on handouts from mummy and daddy ... come to think of it, aren’t those supposed to be right-wing virtues? Can somebody explain to me why the Right isn’t advocating 100% death duties?

Anyway, not to go off the point, I hereby agree with Tony C. Call the article on its assumptions. Mind you, it still seems to me to be chickenshit.

By Adam Roberts on 05/21/07 at 12:23 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Even the property-insane libertarians have started to flirt with what they call Georgist ideas—if, in fact, you want to try to make a principled case that you own the results of your creative labors in perpetuity, the same case pretty much demands that you don’t own your house (or at least the land it’s on) in perpetuity. None of this “when you die”, stuff, either; they’d put the majority of taxes on rents of natural resources.

Of course the basic idea that heirs should forevermore get royalties from great-grandma the writer’s work is batshit insane, but it isn’t even interestingly or consistently insane.

By on 05/21/07 at 12:47 PM | Permanent link to this comment

A copyright is literally a form of property created by the state! This is virtually the definition of a “Beautiful Soul” argument.

By Adam Kotsko on 05/21/07 at 06:45 PM | Permanent link to this comment

The wiki is a great compilation of critique. I’d also direct our readers to copyright analyst Sherwin Siy’s response.

By Joseph Kugelmass on 05/21/07 at 09:50 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

Valve Links

Current Authors

Past Authors

Most recent articles

Most recent comments

Search:

Archives

Syndication

Validation

Credits

Blogroll

Monday, May 21, 2007

Is he not stupid?

Comments

Add a comment: