Author and professor Tim Parks published a very interesting piece on the New York Review of Books blog yesterday, entitled “Does Copyright Matter?” Along the way to answering his own question, Parks dissects some of the air max 270 pas cher traditional explanations for why copyright is a good and necessary thing, eventually arriving at the conclusion that – flawed though it may be – copyright protection does serve an important purpose.
Parks’ piece really speaks for itself, but I’d like to highlight one comment that cuts to the heart of the matter. One of Parks’ concerns is that if copyright were to be abolished, it would likely spell the death of the “long, traditional novel,” because few authors would undertake such works in a world with no advances forthcoming from publishers, and publishers would likely get out of the publishing business if there were no copyright protection for the works they publish.
Why would the loss (or serious decline) of the novel as a creative form matter? Parks puts it very nicely:
“There is simply no form of escapism, mental immersion, or sustained illusion quite like the thousand-page fantasy narrative, whether it be the endless Harry Potters or the Millennium trilogy; if to have that experience we have to guarantee a substantial income to its creator then society will continue to find a way to do that, in the same way European soccer clubs still find ways to pay exorbitant salaries to their star players.”
Here’s hoping that Parks is correct about that; after all, the world probably needs another great novel more than it needs David Beckham to have another few million bucks. (Uh…. no offense intended, Dave!).http://www.kanyewestyeezy.fr