Jonathan Morse wrote:
 
> I >From a literary-historical point of view, that change in the law is
> interesting for the way it reflects literary reality. If the twentieth
> century had turned out like the nineteenth or the seventeenth, the
> lawmakers might not have had to act. Do Keats or Jonson pass into the
> public domain toward the end of their centuries? No problem; there's still
> money to be made from Tennyson or Dryden. Some centuries are productive all
> the way through. But in the eighteenth century most of the important work
> was done in the first half, and as of now it appears the twentieth century
> also followed that pattern.
 
Well, let's be clear about this: the extension of copyright was clearly not
because big publishers aren't making money. With mergers and a relentless trimming
of unprofitable titles, most publishers are doing well. They also have more
political muscle to further increase their profits.
 
I'm surprised by the implicit argument about "important work." Are you really
suggesting there are any publishing executives who are losing sleep because a hack
like Jewel sells 250,000 books, while a good chunk of (for example) Ron Silliman's
work is out of print? "Important work," however defined, doesn't keep
HarperCollins in business. Hell, it barely kept New Directions afloat.
 
Bill Freind