Collin's assassination list

cthia wrote:I recall discussing quite some time ago whether the "urban" term "ratchet" was actually born from our lovely Nurse Ratched. Instead of what the scholars say ...

wiki wrote:Ratchet is a slang term in hip hop that, in its original sense, referred to an uncouth woman, and may be a Louisianan regiolect version of the word "wretched" or a variation of the word "ratshit." The term has since been extended to have broader meanings and connotations and is no longer strictly bound by race or gender.

tlb wrote:Why not the CB term "ratchet jaw", which would play into the gender stereotype of talking endlessly?

Yep! Brilliant!

P.S. Don't miss my apology on the previous page.

cthia wrote:Tlb!

I just now downloaded a copy of it in digital form and did a search for Murphy. Not a single Murphy appeared amongst over six hundred McMurphy's.

I wondered if I was sure, or whether I was simply remembering all the class discussions where WE shortened it to Murphy. Therefore, MY friends, classmates, nickname. Hmm. It was four decades ago the last read. Five for the first read. My apology.

To be fair, McMurphy seems like a strange Scottish - Irish hybrid (apologies to anyone who has it as a name), so maybe the author was trying to find something uncommon. McMurtry is the closest I could find in what remains of the phone book here.

I also read that the author of the book did not like the movie, but it is suggested that was because he got no money from it. I assume the movie was based on the play and so the author had unwittingly signed away the rights to any adaptation of that play.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Tlb!

I just now downloaded a copy of it in digital form and did a search for Murphy. Not a single Murphy appeared amongst over six hundred McMurphy's.

I wondered if I was sure, or whether I was simply remembering all the class discussions where WE shortened it to Murphy. Therefore, MY friends, classmates, nickname. Hmm. It was four decades ago the last read. Five for the first read. My apology.

To be fair, McMurphy seems like a strange Scottish - Irish hybrid (apologies to anyone who has it as a name), so maybe the author was trying to find something uncommon. McMurtry is the closest I could find in what remains of the phone book here.

I also read that the author of the book did not like the movie, but it is suggested that was because he got no money from it. I assume the movie was based on the play and so the author had unwittingly signed away the rights to any adaptation of that play.

That's an interesting tidbit. I wasn't aware of that. Could it be the copyright had expired in those days? The book was published in 1962. The movie in 1975. An author's work may not have been as protected then as now. A WAG.

tlb wrote:I also read that the author of the book did not like the movie, but it is suggested that was because he got no money from it. I assume the movie was based on the play and so the author had unwittingly signed away the rights to any adaptation of that play.

cthia wrote:That's an interesting tidbit. I wasn't aware of that. Could it be the copyright had expired in those days? The book was published in 1962. The movie in 1975. An author's work may not have been as protected then as now. A WAG.

Prior to 1975 the copyright limit was 28 years. But if the author made a deal with the playwright that did not include mention of derivative works; then the movie could be based on the play and would owe money to the playwright, but not to the author of the book.

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:I also read that the author of the book did not like the movie, but it is suggested that was because he got no money from it. I assume the movie was based on the play and so the author had unwittingly signed away the rights to any adaptation of that play.

cthia wrote:That's an interesting tidbit. I wasn't aware of that. Could it be the copyright had expired in those days? The book was published in 1962. The movie in 1975. An author's work may not have been as protected then as now. A WAG.

Prior to 1975 the copyright limit was 28 years. But if the author made a deal with the playwright that did not include mention of derivative works; then the movie could be based on the play and would owe money to the playwright, but not to the author of the book.

I think a copyright should last as long as the author has descendants if he so bequeaths.

tlb wrote:Prior to 1975 the copyright limit was 28 years. But if the author made a deal with the playwright that did not include mention of derivative works; then the movie could be based on the play and would owe money to the playwright, but not to the author of the book.

cthia wrote:I think a copyright should last as long as the author has descendants if he so bequeaths.

In the USA:

As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

I believe that the 120 years for a work made for hire is the Mickey Mouse rule.

Interestingly, there appears to be a special addendum to British copyright law that grants a copyright in perpetuity for "Peter Pan" that was bequeathed by J. M. Barrie to the Great Ormond Street Hospital (just for royalties). Mexico may be the only country that grants a perpetual copyright in general.

cthia wrote:I think a copyright should last as long as the author has descendants if he so bequeaths.

I don't necessarily mind if an authors descendants are still receiving royalties. I do mind if they can use the copyright to forever prevent any new publication of the book, or block every attempt to adapt it or make derivative works from it.

Plus an "any descendants" rule makes determining who controls the copyright an eternal nightmare. Not so much for work that continued to be popular and stay in active publication; but any attempt to popularize a long forgotten work suffers from a nearly insurmountable difficulty in figuring out who can grant permission. Imagine someone in 500 years or so trying to figure out whether a given author who self-published on Amazon under a pen name has any descendants; and if so tracking all of them down to get their collective permission to incorporate that work in a collection of early 21st century non-traditional authors!
Might as well give up before you've started.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I think a copyright should last as long as the author has descendants if he so bequeaths.

I don't necessarily mind if an authors descendants are still receiving royalties. I do mind if they can use the copyright to forever prevent any new publication of the book, or block every attempt to adapt it or make derivative works from it.

Plus an "any descendants" rule makes determining who controls the copyright an eternal nightmare. Not so much for work that continued to be popular and stay in active publication; but any attempt to popularize a long forgotten work suffers from a nearly insurmountable difficulty in figuring out who can grant permission. Imagine someone in 500 years or so trying to figure out whether a given author who self-published on Amazon under a pen name has any descendants; and if so tracking all of them down to get their collective permission to incorporate that work in a collection of early 21st century non-traditional authors!
Might as well give up before you've started.

What I find annoying is a book written in the 50s which sold for <$1 US in paperback form, now costs me $8.99 for an electronic copy. You can't tell me that even 25% of that goes to the family.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I think a copyright should last as long as the author has descendants if he so bequeaths.

I don't necessarily mind if an authors descendants are still receiving royalties. I do mind if they can use the copyright to forever prevent any new publication of the book, or block every attempt to adapt it or make derivative works from it.

Plus an "any descendants" rule makes determining who controls the copyright an eternal nightmare. Not so much for work that continued to be popular and stay in active publication; but any attempt to popularize a long forgotten work suffers from a nearly insurmountable difficulty in figuring out who can grant permission. Imagine someone in 500 years or so trying to figure out whether a given author who self-published on Amazon under a pen name has any descendants; and if so tracking all of them down to get their collective permission to incorporate that work in a collection of early 21st century non-traditional authors!
Might as well give up before you've started.

You're going to want to skewer me for this, but I can accept even that. Here's the thing. I'd be just as disappointed as you about all of the downsides of it that you laid out. But if you step into the shoes of the family who knows the intimate history of the characters, characters who may be patterned after famous people in the family, might have to endure their characters exploited, criminalized, lacking morals and every other thing awful. Now, apply that to a Christian family, whose family had a tradition of using the same name for new births. A name that is now synonymous with evil.

What if David's daughter's daughter's daughter's daughters had to read about an Honor that is a harlot of the galaxy and worse than Lady Young?

Would that be David's great great great granddaughters? Hating their great great great grandfather for ever having created that character, who is on Holovid doing hideous things in the future. Dominating the Holovid. Primetime. The longest running Holovid ever.

You know, I thought about something ironic and funny. If the MA takes the gloves off and starts assassinating in job lots, the GA is going to need someone who knows assassinations and can best think like the enemy. Can you imagine Beth approaching Eloise to open classified files, tips and tricks on the subject? Wear the leopard suit of her old Haven in thought? Historically, Haven is the second most experienced assassins in the galaxy. Do you know what they say about the second best swordsman?