Thank you for your clear refutation of Mr. Helprin’s arguments.

I don’t understand the purpose of your first long collection of excerpts from Mr. Helprin’s book. (following “Friends don’t let friends publish books like this.”) Why are you criticizing the man’s writing, exactly? I’ve not read all his work, but he’s written at least one novel that is a true American masterwork, so the burden of proof is going to fall on you. His style is his style; there’s no purpose, and not a little foolishness in complaining about it. More importantly, it delays the trip toward the meat of your argument.

Thanks again & good luck.

My biggest concern is that this will kybosh Helprin’s chances of future book tours – the impatient will shout him down. The man is one of the most entertaining speakers I have ever seen (as long as he is not reading from one of his later books). His stories about European book tours with monolingual publisher’s reps ( “My companions are Amazonian tribesmen, they sleep on the floor and eat raw meat” in Italian) or his daughter’s struggle describing her favorite song in Russian ( “We all reside in a yellow subsurface military vehicle”) are hilarious and worth hearing, even if you have to put up with a dab of unpalatable political ranting.

What worries me most about Helprin’s work is what the extension of copyright might do to his own work in the future. Look at what the owners of the Zenna Henderson copyrights did. She wrote science fiction novels for young people, and started each chapter with Bible quotes. Of course, there are many people that find that distasteful, so to increase sales and readership, the current copyright owners took them out of new editions. Because of copyright law, it is effectively illegal for non-copyright owners to publish these works in their original form. If that is the fate of bible quotes, what will be the fate of some of Helprin’s hilariously wicked sentences, some of which will offend Blue and Red alike? Copyright does not “protect” works, just revenue streams.

Study this book. It is eloquent nonsense, and it will be quoted by many eloquent idiots with high official positions. Properly prepared, you will be able to deflate dumb ideas and dumb politicians simultaneously.

My biggest concern is that this will kybosh Helprin’s chances of future book tours – the impatient will shout him down. The man is one of the most entertaining speakers I have ever seen (as long as he is not reading from one of his later books). His stories about European book tours with monolingual publisher’s reps ( “My companions are Amazonian tribesmen, they sleep on the floor and eat raw meat” in Italian) or his daughter’s struggle describing her favorite song in Russian ( “We all reside in a yellow subsurface military vehicle”) are hilarious and worth hearing, even if you have to put up with a dab of unpalatable political ranting.

What worries me most about Helprin’s work is what the extension of copyright might do to his own work in the future. Look at what the owners of the Zenna Henderson copyrights did. She wrote science fiction novels for young people, and started each chapter with Bible quotes. Many people find that distasteful, so to increase sales and readership, the current copyright owners took them out of new editions. Because of copyright law, it is effectively illegal for non-copyright owners to publish these works in their original form. If that is the fate of bible quotes, what will be the fate of some of Helprin’s hilariously wicked sentences, some of which will offend Blue and Red alike? Copyright does not “protect” works, just revenue streams.

Study this book. It is eloquent nonsense, and it will be quoted by many eloquent idiots with high official positions. Properly prepared, you will be able to deflate dumb ideas and dumb politicians simultaneously.

Clem – all of me, not just a part, thinks its ludicrous…I was being facetious. To be serious – I find Lessig very persuasive, particularly in explaining that the limits imposed on copyright are motivated by a “public reason,” and in clarifying that his position is not anti-copyright. I agree too that Helprin comes across as both absurd and insufferable, but the argument “If those composers’ copyrights weren’t limited, we wouldn’t have their alternate versions,” is not music to my ears.

fn 3: “Actually, Boyle is from Scotland. I’m sure Scotland would not consider itself a colony of England.”

Perhaps not a colony per se, but given that the second-most powerful political party in Scotland is one expressly committed to Scottish independence from England, certainly not an equal partner.

(Mr Helprin’s quote, out of context, seems to both have failed to do any research on James Boyle, and also to make the common colonial mistake of conflating Englishness with Britishness. But I digress.)

Here are several good cases.

First, all authors, like all inventors, “stand on the shoulders of giants.” Much, perhaps most, of the value the public gets from any work is in the later works that other authors will derive from it. Yet copyright law, as it currently exists, prohibits those later authors from even beginning work until the original is in the public domain. This may not be a major issue for works of literature, but it has drastically slowed down the improvement of software products for decades.

Second, why should an author get paid without having to pay the predecessors from whose work his is derived?

Third, where a work (or even a trademark) is related to political controversy, enforcement of copyright against critics of the IP owner has the effect of censoring political debate. The courts should refuse ever to do that. But even outside of political debate, freedom of expression is an important right which will end up severely restricted if we ever get perpetual copyright law.

Aside: Spider Robinson’s “Melancholy Elephants” *is* a worthy contribution to this discussion, but so are his subsequent, pro-IP comments published in “The Crazy Years.” He is not entirely our ally, though this may be partly a result of misunderstanding.