<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dead Writers&#8217; Society</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:58:52 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Buccafusco</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/comment-page-1/#comment-224120</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Buccafusco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/#comment-224120</guid>
		<description>How different is this from the legal treatise tradition?  There are many examples of &quot;X&#039;s Treatise by Y&quot; published long after X&#039;s death.  Sometimes these are merely updates with new material included in brackets or footnotes, but often they represent complete revisions and rewritings of the original work.  Scholars like Wigmore and Prosser have been brands for decades.  (Incidentally, Wigmore&#039;s first evidence treatise was a revision of Greenleaf published as the latter&#039;s 16th edition.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How different is this from the legal treatise tradition?  There are many examples of &#8220;X&#8217;s Treatise by Y&#8221; published long after X&#8217;s death.  Sometimes these are merely updates with new material included in brackets or footnotes, but often they represent complete revisions and rewritings of the original work.  Scholars like Wigmore and Prosser have been brands for decades.  (Incidentally, Wigmore&#8217;s first evidence treatise was a revision of Greenleaf published as the latter&#8217;s 16th edition.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rebecca Tushnet</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/comment-page-1/#comment-224117</link>
		<dc:creator>Rebecca Tushnet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/#comment-224117</guid>
		<description>IP owners, unsurprisingly, are seeking other ways to monetize the fan relationship through things like FanLib.com and starwars.com, with associated controls imposed on what fans can create. By authorizing some, possibly the hope is to be able to authorize all, though I think that hope will prove hard to realize.

The blogger&#039;s observation that this occurs in genre works is certainly true, but there&#039;s much more: VC Andrews is the obvious example, as Lastowka points out, but there are also long traditions of jointly authored worlds in sf/fantasy, sometimes created by people working at about the same time (Thieves&#039; World, Wild Cards) and sometimes involving later additions (H. Beam Piper&#039;s Fuzzies), not to mention all the tie-in novels (Star Trek and Star Wars being the biggest examples, but it extends much further, from Beauty &amp; the Beast to V).  Superhero comics, of course, have had multiple artists, writers, and pencillers for decades, and the form supports auteurism among fans even without a one-to-one author/world correspondence.  The idea of romantic authorship is too useful to die; what it is that the romantic author is responsible for, however, may change over time and genre.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IP owners, unsurprisingly, are seeking other ways to monetize the fan relationship through things like FanLib.com and starwars.com, with associated controls imposed on what fans can create. By authorizing some, possibly the hope is to be able to authorize all, though I think that hope will prove hard to realize.</p>
<p>The blogger&#8217;s observation that this occurs in genre works is certainly true, but there&#8217;s much more: VC Andrews is the obvious example, as Lastowka points out, but there are also long traditions of jointly authored worlds in sf/fantasy, sometimes created by people working at about the same time (Thieves&#8217; World, Wild Cards) and sometimes involving later additions (H. Beam Piper&#8217;s Fuzzies), not to mention all the tie-in novels (Star Trek and Star Wars being the biggest examples, but it extends much further, from Beauty &amp; the Beast to V).  Superhero comics, of course, have had multiple artists, writers, and pencillers for decades, and the form supports auteurism among fans even without a one-to-one author/world correspondence.  The idea of romantic authorship is too useful to die; what it is that the romantic author is responsible for, however, may change over time and genre.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Archit Shah</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/comment-page-1/#comment-224116</link>
		<dc:creator>Archit Shah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/08/20/dead-writers-society/#comment-224116</guid>
		<description>Reminds me of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.efc.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gene Rodenberry&#039;s Earth: Final Conflict&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reminds me of <a href="http://www.efc.com" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/www.efc.com');">Gene Rodenberry&#8217;s Earth: Final Conflict</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
