Thank you for this. Very much.
"that literary value arises not in the scene of writing so much as the scene of reading"
I need not point out how interesting is the use of "scene" here instead of what might seem the more idiomatic and fashionable "site."
My Marxian analytical powers might be sorely tested "here", though of course Marxians would consider it silly to contend that use-value, exchange-value, or value are created by labour at the site of the labour.
Shall I suspend this day's endeavors to comprehend the shrimplike rainbow beams of Kakurinji?
I also think I notice and appreciate a certain reflective joke or comment within the post itself. Which reminds me:
Alyssa Rosenberg on a lawsuit about embedding
and as long as we are talking about property rights
Felix Salmon on Sobel suing Eggleston
I find it interesting and disconcerting that I can't seen to drag the selected text here
Anyway
"Law is not an argument so much as an instrument of self-enforcement; thus, even breaking the law confirms the logic and categories of the law, which work to criminalize any transgressive act of dissent."
might pertain to Minivet's post about juries, if we could get the lawyers out of there.
I am enjoying this too much. Curse you, neb!
Honestly my whole position on copyright law is evolving due to the fear that this cover is probably unlicensed. I love these kids. Check out the drummer!
Check out this one, even better. Happy Sunday.
I finally clicked on the link and realized that "Paul K. Saint-Amour's The Copywrights" is not the name of a book written 150 years ago.
I am uncomfortable with the use of "realize" in comment 7.
I also was surprised by certain aspects of the link. Then it went into the black hole of my "too read" folder, not far from a bunch of other stuff on copyright.
Well, I read the whole thing thru yesterday, and since it was mentioned in the intro, it inspired me to rethink "Oxen of the Sun" Jesus, that one's a fucker, not the warmest, but probably Joyce at the dense depth of his genius. "Cento?"
Well, the recombination of materials (language, history, Joyce's world) is what Oxen is about...I'll give you this, from Frederick K Lang, which is about the passage I've been remembering:
"Stephen insists upon either transubstantiality or consubstantiality over subsubstantiality. ...Sabellian heresy, orthodox doctrine, but not the heresy of Valentine. Subsubstantiality...refers to the corruption and perversion of the body. Images of self and others are caricatures of the human form"
There ya go. I'm serious, that blasphemous rant may be the key to Joyce, and is fucking radical, as radical as the dual nature of the Christ. Just as Stephen in the Library gives a theory of knowledge, Stephen in the maternity ward gives us Joyce's theory of literary/artistic creation. Ulysses is not a representation, is not less than its materials and sources, anymore than the child born to Mrs Purefoy is a lesser being than its parents. Joyce never left the seminary, and was trying to make his art transcendental.
Meanwhile Leopold is thinking about the sufferings of women in childbirth, and I think, hoping/not hoping that Blazes and Molly give him a son.
There is so much in that fucking section. Nausicaa-Oxen-Circe ends the journey. Virgin-Mother-Whore.
(Near the end, ? gets/doesn't get a "French letter" for a date with Bloom's daughter)
I am so mad that nine of you are looking at those under 10 kids doing an amazing Rammstein cover. What is wrong with you child hating monsters.
On the broader issues, I've been playing around with the following analogy: the CTEA is to discussions of copyright law as Harvard's affirmative action policy is to discussions of race relations. Both things that are intellectually fascinating to the kinds of people who tend to comment and write on intellectually fascinating things, but substantively about 878th on the importance list, wherever you stand on intellectual property law (or race relations).
I am about to post that shit to Facebook, thank you.
I looked, Halford, so maybe you can make the count ten.
12
... but substantively about 878th on the importance list, ...
When people start arguing that a hotly debated topic is actually unimportant this is a sign that they are losing the debate.
You really think whether works continue to enter to public domain is unimportant?
I still say copyright terms should be 21 years. By the time Lucas was making Episode 1, he should have been facing some competition.
No, that the extension of the term by 20 years didn't matter all that much to anyone except for rights holders with valuable assets that they'd marketed, and academics and librarians. Just not that important.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
I am so mad that nine of you are looking at those under 10 kids doing an amazing Rammstein cover. What is wrong with you child hating monsters.
Some of us respect people's property rights. We're not all thieves like you.
(I looked, though, so I am.)
I'm happy to agree that taken on its own adding 20 years isn't a big deal given that they were already absurdly long. But it's a step in the wrong direction and it's part of a very bad trend of extending terms 20 more years every 20 years.