Re: Re: [mythsoc] Fan fiction
Typical Hostetterian smokescreen. Please explain where I disagree with copyright and please explain where I agree with the abuse of copyright by corporations. You can also include in there some information about where I agree that copyright should only be held by natural persons and only for their lifetime. Alternatively you can explain how I don't agree with US corporate interests pressuring foreign nations into accepting it's copyright extension.
Since you _clearly_ know my reasoning, I will let you explain what I am trying to say. Of course I understand that you will get it wrong, but that's only because of experience :-)
Alternatively, I could leave your atypical "leap of faith" argument technique for the strawman that it normally is.
Next you will be telling me that I spelt "caio" wrong again and trying to explain to the world what I meant by it (not that you _ever_ done this before) :-)
> Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
> Your argument (and the _whole_ of your argument) is that because
> "human history worked without modern copyright for the last couple of
> thousand years", copyright has no particular value to the workings of
> human history. By precisely this same reasoning, this _metric_, _any_
> innovation of law (or, really, any innovation at all) must likewise
> be judged of no particular value to the workings of human history,
> simply _because_ it is an innovation.
> Thus, since I have simply applied your own reasoning, it is no more a
> straw man than your own argument. I'll leave you to decide that degree.
> On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:17 PM, finsen@... wrote:
> >> Well, Graeme, human history also "worked for the last couple of
> >> thousand years" without constitutional democracies, child-labor laws,
> >> independent legislatures and judiciary, science, medicine,
> >> technology, the Internet, everyone participating in this discussion,
> >> etc., etc., etc. Does that mean that none of these have any value
> >> either, and should be dispensed with?
> > Strawman
> > caio
> > Graeme
- --- In email@example.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:
> At 01:52 AM 7/20/2005 +0000, Lezlie wrote:because they're major sources in Old Norse, a
> language he taught, and because he used them as sources (they'rewhere the
> dwarf-names came from).Of course, I had momentarily forgotten... ! :)
> >I also disagree that "all fiction is fan fiction". There is a deeper,Ahhh... Although those are precisly the qualities we seek in reading
> >more complex conversation going in between authors, readers and later
> >generation writers than what seems to be the norm in "fan-fic."
> Totally apart from questions of quality and subtlety,
and in crafting our fiction. Whether a piece has literary quality or
not, BTW, was beside my point.
there is also a
> difference between crafting a work in response to an earlier workand being
> inspired by it, and actually borrowing its concrete setting orretelling it
> openly. This is a difference in kind, not necessarily a difference inAlso beside my point. What I was talking about is something different--
> literary value.
BTW: Have you read Stallybrass & White on this subject? Very
interesting stuff and a killer title: "The Politics and Poetics of
Transgression" - Lezlie