Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 29 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Copyright and authors
[Read the article: Throwing Google at the book]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As an author with a first book coming out in the spring and as someone who has as expansive a view of what the Internet ought to be as probably anyone -- I don't understand the all-or-nothing approach taken by either "side."
Copyright laws were fine the way they were when they were meant to protect and encourage authors. They've been extended, broadened, for the purpose of ensuring revenue streams for corporations and descendants of authors.
On the other hand -- no, I don't trust Google in perpetuity, either. I don't trust that their interests are coincident with mine, or that this is entirely a "win-win" situation.
Seventy-plus years is a ridiculously long time for a copyright to routinely exist, first of all. Twenty-some was fine. Ten is probably fine for almost everything.
There's no reason that some before-and-after date can't be picked -- say, 2000. Anything published after 2000 is opt-in; anything before, opt-out.
At some point, I'll probably get gloomy about all this, and unproductive -- probably when portable electronic book readers are as accepted and ubiquitous as IPods. And I am concerned that (pardon my raised voice here, but most people don't know this) MANY COPYRIGHTED WORKS, ESPECIALLY BESTSELLERS, ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR FREE DOWNLOAD THROUGH THE SAME CHANNELS AS MUSIC.)
The difference is, not many people -- yet -- are reading books on portable devices. It's on the horizon ... might be a few years, might be generational.
I hope there's time to talk it through. I'd like to be earning a living as an author for quite a while ... that will require that I'm good enough to be popular, and that the public is good enough to compensate me reasonably for my efforts ... somehow. ;-)
-
Let's see ...
[Read the article: Our Jennifer fixation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are we supposed to be offended that Anniston's angst over her breakup has followed pretty much the pattern that anyone else's, other than that it has been unwrapped for us in national magazines. How crafty of her and her "master publicist" ... how positively riveting for Salon to deconstruct it ... But it does seem to me to be much easier to apply Occam's Razor, look for the simplest explanation. She's really famous and probably pretty normal, by Hollywood standards; so we get fed, ad infinitum, the same story we'd get if it was an actual girl friend who went through a break-up, only it's entirely vicarious and hurts less. Tastes great, less filling, etc. The whole story could be done in a 30-second commercial ... and despite the media, writing this letter has taken more of my time than I've spent paying attention to Anniston in 2005.
-
Play both ways ...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love that idea. It might even get me to watch a game that doesn't involve both the Steelers and the playoffs (this is the first week since 1999 I've paid attention to football for a whole month at a time.)
I know, there's the arena league. But that looks silly to me. Football's an outdoor game. Stupid domes ...
OK, it's time for a new league! 20-man rosters ... and I've got dibs on Doug Flutie, whom I bet can still play QB/DB in this league ...
-
Oops ...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... I meant 1995, of course, probably.
-
I got to this ...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... a few days late, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to compliment King for writing an entire column that was mostly about the Cubs, and included the Pirates, without even once using the word "hapless."
-
The save ...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is a stat that people with even a strong rooting interest can't explain. Most people think any reliever who ever finishes a winning game gets one unless an announcer explains otherwise.
There's gotta be a better way to rate these guys. In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of them ... but they're all even more arcane, involving, as they do, various formulae for dealing with the activity of "inherited runners."
Me, I can't wait until we start hearing about some pitcher is a Hall of Fame candidate for averaging an amazing 25 "quality starts" year in, year out ...
-
There are few things ...
[Read the article: Billboards in space]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... more pointless than discussing the merits of anything with a *doctrinaire* Libertarian. Though they have the normal range of intelligence, as a general rule they'll value intellectual consistency with Ayn Rand over any other common measurement of braininess, including anecdotal common sense. ;-)
I've encountered less rigidity from 2nd Amendment absolutists.
That said ... walk away from the edge and you can find all flavors. Over at the Cato Institute, you can even find the semblance of a debate about whether one can be a "Libertarian Democrat." Despite my tongue-in-cheek disdain, I appropriate "Libertarian" as an adjective for some of my own relativistic (shudder) views ...
-
As further corroboration ...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... of your main points, if any is necessary ...
Let's face it, the general public, the average fan, would be far more stricken with grief had Lidle been better known. Think Thurman Munson. Think Roberto Clemente.
I'm almost sure they had kids, too.
-
"Satyrist ..." ;-)
[Read the article: The real menace to American kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll assume, for lack of evidence otherwise, that aubreypub's spelling (ass-kicking satyrist) was premeditated. ;-)
Applied to Bill, it's priceless.
sa·tyr (sâ¹ter, sàt¹er) noun
1. Often Satyr . Greek Mythology. A woodland creature depicted as having the pointed ears, legs, and short horns of a goat and a fondness for unrestrained revelry.
2. A licentious man; a lecher.
3. A man who is affected by satyriasis.
-
Typo or ... whatever ...
[Read the article: The fall of the house of Pynchon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems like someone should have used an equation, or at least a little history and math, in editing the review.
Just how does one come up with there being a "40-or-so-year span between the 1893 Chicago World's Fair and just after the First World War?"