J.G. Ballard Dies at Age 78

jefu writes "J.G. Ballard, an author (of science fiction and other fiction) has died. His works include some of the strangest and most compelling novels ever, including 'The Crystal World,' 'Crash' and 'The Atrocity Exhibition.' For a truly weird read, try his 'Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race," compared with Alfred Jarry's "The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race.'" Here is Ballard's obituary at the BBC.

Comments

For those with ebook readers

[linzeal]

All of his works are on Piratebay and since copyrights should be nullified upon death, enjoy.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[4D6963]

Yes! Copyrights nullified upon death! Intellectual property vultures rejoice, the author is dead, let the feast begin!

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they should not be nullified upon death. What if the author dies a day after his work is first published? The publisher still has to pay their bills. Copyright should be restored to its original condition as laid down by the founding fathers; 14 years is more than fair in this day and age.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

That way when an author starts to suck we can sacrifice him to memory of his former glory and enjoy his works for free! Genius!

Re:For those with ebook readers

[tripmine]

I don't want to get into the morality/legality of this but I do agree. What GP said does sound fucked up.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

"George Lucas was seen fleeing his California ranch today after visiting an unnamed website."

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you really have to bring "since copyrights should be nullified upon death" into this thread? It's not a troll, but it is distasteful.

If copyrights became null on someone's death, that would create an incentive to have dead artists. In the extreme, it could create Dover Death Squads or K-tel assassins. More likely, an artist could drop dead right after their work and the work would go unrewarded; suddenly you'll find every new piece of copyrighted material is listed as a collaborative work.

Just make copyrights a particular, genuinely limited length of time. That's all. Don't let the current perversion of "limited length" lead you to adapting other, worse ideas for limits on copyright.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[ZosX]

Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve. Funerals are expensive too. Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything, but seeing as how many authors are broke most of their life, I'm sure he would just be ok with his family getting nothing. I mean, the guys not even in the ground yet and suddenly his life's work should be free? Your logic fails me. I could see maybe like 10 to 20 years or something, but jeez, copyright exists for a period of time after death for a whole bunch of reasons.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

A) the idea that copyright constitutes "property" in the regular sense is silly because it's a government-granted license for the exclusive rights to copy a work for a limited term -- i.e. it's not "property", it's a lease; B) even so, I'm fine with "intellectual property" only if people pay taxes on it for as long as they "own" it; C) the current lease term is far too long, but terminating with the death of the author is a bit inconsiderate too. Twenty years after death should be ample time to provide living people with an incentive to create new works, and to allow any children of an author to come to the realization they'll soon have to create their own works in order to make more money, rather than sponging off their parent's works forever.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it does. But most straw men sound pretty strange when compared to realistic depictions of an opposing person's viewpoint.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[stoolpigeon]

Or take a different route.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Mprx]

14 years is excessive, as improved distribution methods mean more people can access the work soon after publication than was possible when copyright was originally designed. Additionally, improved communications technology increases the pace of meme distribution, and as a great deal of value of a copyrighted work is in the novel social interactions it enables this shortens its time of highest value.

An automatic copyright of 5 years, with an extension of another 5 years available on paying a several thousand dollar fee sounds reasonable.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Whiteox]

it could create Dover Death Squads or K-tel assassins.

I'm sure that Time-Life Music would be interested in that concept. Killing off has-been pop stars would be right up their tin-pan alley.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[OrangeTide]

So if I just kill you I can start publishing all your work? You can't hand it off to your children who might need the income due to your untimely death?

I'm not arguing against shorter copyright durations, I'm all for that, but just pointing out the naivety of your statement.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that the same theory applies to real estate, right? You don't "own" real estate, you own "title" to real estate which may or may not be in your possession (i.e., which you may or may not inhabit and protect through fences, locks, etc.), but since you can't put real estate in your pocket, the whole concept of owning it is abstract. Paying a kind of property tax on "intellectual property" would put it in the same category as real estate and automobiles (unlike cash savings, for which you do not pay taxes - only income). Twenty years after death is a little short. I'm all in favor of going back to death+50. Except in the case of Walt Disney; their copyrights should all expire immediately just to spite them.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[OrangeTide]

Some of us take more than 14 years to finish our creative works. Sorry if your flash animations aren't as hard as painting a building sized mural by yourself or writing a field guide on all known North American bird species. While we can certainly adjust it so that when you're finished is when the clock starts, going from one project to another if it takes more than 5 years to complete is not very economical. I assume for a steady income we'd like to have royalties for at least as long as it takes us to make another project that can produce steady income.

I'd argue 5 years for corporate entities, and 20 years for individuals. With no extensions possible. If you need to protect your work for more than 5 years, you'll have to figure out a way to tie trademarks into it and protect it the hard (and expensive) way.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[aztektum]

Doesn't mean those reasons are right. Copyright shouldn't allow someone to collect forever for working once. And it really shouldn't be relied on as a gift to for their family after death. If I die my family doesn't luck into some extra cash because from users of the network and computers I support.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Mprx]

The clock should start from date of first publication. A few thousand dollars isn't much spread over 10 years if your project is profitable. If your next project will take an unusually long time to complete and you can't afford to finance it yourself then you'll have to convince people to invest in it.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

So some guy works for 15 years on his magnum opus. He publishes it, the next day he gets hit by a car. His book becomes a worldwide sensation but his widow and kids get nothing because of your idiot rule. Screw that, 14 years is a fair period, death or no.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Tweenk]

Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything

I'd rather put money in the bank while I was alive rather than leave them at the mercy of the society's interest in my works. Copyright is NOT supposed to be a life insurance.

An even better solution would be to tie copyright to first publication date instead of the author's death date. For instance, it would be MUCH easier to determine whether a given book is in the public domain, because the first impression's publication date is usually printed on the second page. The authors' death dates on the other hand may be unobtainable, especially for obscure works.

I mean, the guys not even in the ground yet and suddenly his life's work should be free?

The guy's family did not write the things that were under copyright. Giving them money for someone else's work will not cause them to create more, which is supposed to be the purpose of copyright. It may be cruel not to give money to a family in mourning, but this is what life insurance is for.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[ZosX]

Yeah, but if I die, my artwork might be one day worth something and my family would have something to sell. This is why intellectual property exists, so there is something that is tangible that can be transferred. In the eyes of the law it is my property. Like it or not, I can do what I want with my property after I die as defined by my will. I disagree with the excessively long times that copyright can be extended for now, and I think 10 years or so is really kind of fine. There are other reasons that copyright can't expire at death as other people have noted. Why shouldn't your family be the ones that reap the benefits of your labor? If I produced sculpture all my life, should my sculpture be suddenly public domain at death? How is writing or anything else that takes intellectual effort any different other than it exists in easily reproduced forms?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Macthorpe]

Copyright shouldn't allow someone to collect forever for working once.

You're absolutely right. I can't think of a single compromise we could make between "expires on death" and "never expires at all".~

(My theory has always been this: 15 years. You either have 15 years or death of the author, whichever comes later. Allows people to collect off their work until they shuffle off this mortal coil, but ensures if they do die very early that the family still sees something from it. I would find that acceptable, though most of the people here probably wouldn't)

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

How is writing or anything else that takes intellectual effort any different other than it exists in easily reproduced forms?

Something to do with physics or information theory or something. I'm tired, ask me in the morning.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

How to provide for my family in case of my untimely death.
1) Set aside a percentage of my paycheck into savings (cds,savings accounts,mutual funds,stocks... etc), and make sure that my written will is up to date
2) Perpetual copyright
3) Stuff matress full of scratch off lotto tickets
4) Government Bailout
I'm leaning toward three, what do you think?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Narpak]

I think a system a bit better than simply Copyright should be implemented. If I was a writer I would hope to maintain rights to my own work for as long as I live at least to a certain extend. While I can see the merit of letting people copy and publish your work unrestricted after some numbers of years (twenty-thirty years after original publication maybe) I would say that should only go for pure copies of the book/image. If say someone wanted to make a movie or TV adaptation of the work then as long as the author lives he/she should have rights to decide if it should be allowed and influence the adaptation.

When it comes to selling rights to publishers, movie studios or other corporations; then I am for much stronger legislation. If an author sells rights to a someone else then those rights should become public domain after a certain number of predefined years not exceeding a maximum number of years (say fifteen years or so).

Perhaps this is a bit simplistic and something a bit more detailed and robust is needed. All I can say is that at the moment copyright law, and the means used by large entities like Disney, are perhaps not in the best interest of the consumer, the artist and society in general. It is a serious subject that requires serious deliberation and debate; however at the moment most seem to show disinterest and large economic entities are allowed to deal as they very well please.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'll concede your point that the ownership of land is just as abstract as "intellectual property" in some ways, but there's a very important difference for copyright: limited term. Copyright has *always* had a limited term, and the reasons for having a limited term haven't changed. Copyright is a license from the government to control the copying of the work, but that license expires. If you buy and get the title to a piece of land the ownership doesn't ordinarily expire. If it does, you don't say you "own" the land, you say you are leasing it, at which point the title reverts to the original owner. Same for copyright. It's a temporary lease.

We can argue over whether 20 years are enough, but it's got to expire or people are permanently "stealing" from the public domain and really are turning it into "property". At that point I do think it is appropriate to pay taxes on it like property.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Philip_the_physicist]

IMO, copyright should be life or 25 years whichever is longer, and 25 years for corporate works. This is plenty of time to profit on the work, and to provide for the creator's children in the event of his death. A fixed term for both individual and corporate works would also be reasonable, but is probably not a realistic option.

I would also support the principle of some form of limited moral rights law, requiring the producer of derivative works to acknowledge their source, unless this right is disclaimed by the source. The devil is in the details for this, though, and if we are not careful, we could end up with a monster.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[SanityInAnarchy]

In the eyes of the law it is my property.

That doesn't mean the law is right.

The original purpose of copyright was not to define ownership. It was, like patents, intended to provide a temporary monopoly on a work. And it was designed, not so you could make a profit, but to give you an incentive to create the work in the first place -- with the hopes that it will be in the public domain eventually.

If I produced sculpture all my life, should my sculpture be suddenly public domain at death? How is writing or anything else that takes intellectual effort any different other than it exists in easily reproduced forms?

That is pretty much it. It comes back to this:

The sculpture is a physical object. Physical objects can be property. No one can take your sculpture from you without your permission, because then you wouldn't have a sculpture anymore.

A book is probably more a collection of words. They can't take the original manuscript, but they can at least gain the ability to create copies. But no amount of copying means that you no longer have the book.

The problem is, it's about a right, not about a piece of property, physical or otherwise. Even stranger, it's not about them taking a right away from you -- it's about them giving that right to everyone else.

Frankly, if you want to look after your family, leave them money and/or life insurance. On the other hard, I would be very happy if copyright were a maximum of ten years, and totally transferable through death or otherwise.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[SanityInAnarchy]

I wouldn't, mostly because I see no reason why you should keep getting a check for something you did 15 years ago. Surely you could have produced something new by then?

Yes, you could retire and live off the royalties, and it'd be great. But why should copyright be special that way? In other jobs, you set aside money for retirement. Do that with copyright -- set aside money for retirement, then you won't be penniless when your works expire.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[palegray.net]

This is an absolutely ridiculous proposition. Improved distribution methods mean jack-all when it comes to determining the length of copyright. This is honestly like saying "Transportation is more efficient these days, so cake mixes ought to be less fattening." That makes about as much sense as your assertion.

Your note regarding the determination of value on copyrighted works is preposterous. How, precisely, do you plan on assigning a valid value to works that wind up being regarded as classical works in their respective fields? Short term interactions? How about long term respect?

You use a whole lot of buzzwords, but don't appear to have thought this matter through thoroughly. 14 years sounds reasonable to me.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[MichaelSmith]

My seven year old son didn't write the code which earns money for both of us. If I died he would still benefit from my pay, insurance, etc. Copyright lasts a long time by comparison, but writers earn their money at a slow rate. A month for me may equate to ten years for an author.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Mprx]

Inefficient distribution means more of the copyright monopoly will be wasted. Less waste = less monopoly needed. Long term reputation is irrelevant to optimal monopoly length, because nobody produces work intending it to be only respected in the distant future.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[rolfwind]

All of his works are on Piratebay and since copyrights should be nullified upon death, enjoy.

Yup, can't see any potential for abuse there.

How about just 20 years? I can't see any reason why it should depend at all on death or not.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Miseph]

If you make the time too short, then you can actually encourage people to just wait. Even 14 years will likely be short enough for the vultures (ie. large publishers, film studios, the chronically unhip and cheap) to opt out of bothering until the copyright runs out and they can do whatever they want.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[ion.simon.c]

OT comment WRT your new signature:

Heh. Your rural life in Iowa isn't quite so idyllic? That sucks. :(

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't wade into the length of time debate, but I am a strong believer that we don't need extensions. Authors should be allowed to create a new edition of the work (creating a derivative work could mean changing as little as a few words or adding a new forward or afterward) and then they can be given a full new copyright on the "new" work.

This is what copyright was supposed to be for... to encourage new work. I guess I am just singing to the choir when I mention how perverted copyright has become... a copyright is not supposed to be an unending stream of cash for a corporate organization.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Nefarious Wheel]

I am so not going to illegally copy your building sized mural. Promise.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Should be nullified upon death". Yeah right ... and let's introduce a death tax too?! Why not just have all assets handed over to The State upon death. To hell with the idea of an inheritance or a legacy for those who mattered to the deceased.

You are a bit of insensitive jerk with a few half-baked ideas, I feel. A great writer and visionary passes away and you use that as an opportunity bluntly to spout your self-interested single-issue "moron-isms".

Think about it.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[wizzat]

I would think that having a "regular job" is somewhat front-loaded money. They pay you, you do the work. Going off on your own, being an author, writing a book, magazine, painting, whatever is not so front-loaded. Nobody's paying you up front for your work, and there's really no reason that they *should*.

Also, not everyone rushes out and buys the books *ALL AT THE SAME TIME*. I go buy 10-20 year old books all the time... and you know what? I WANT THE AUTHOR TO GET THEIR CASH FOR IT. Otherwise, I'd have bought them *used*.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Macthorpe]

I see no reason why you should keep getting a check for something you did 15 years ago

Mainly because that assumes that whatever I created spontaneously jumped out of my mind one day 15 years prior.

The large majority of things that this covers would take time to make that people aren't being paid for, e.g. books/music. If it takes you a large amount of unpaid time to write something, why shouldn't you get paid for that time after you wrote it?

As far as I'm concerned, it balances itself out, and I feel 15 years isn't so long it's ridiculous, but not so short it ceases before your work's popularity dies out. Maybe a shorter term would be better, but I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could get your ass up from in front of the computer and walk to the library...

Re:For those with ebook readers

[4D6963]

You realise that when you spend years writing a book based on an entire lifetime's work, after all the struggles of publishing and promoting a book, 5 years seem like a blink of an eye to reap the fruits of your hard work.

You're aware that most book writers are little guys who hardly can even make a living out of it and wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the hope that their work could benefit them and their family durably? You realise that few book writers are Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, right? I don't even think you consider that side of things, I think you only consider your interests. (Disclaimer : my parents were book writers and struggled.)

Re:For those with ebook readers

[4D6963]

How about mmmmh the status quo!

Re:For those with ebook readers

[palegray.net]

Classic. The parent post gets modded offtopic because some mods don't agree with my position. Meanwhile, the GP post gets modded up because it fits with their version of fantasy. God, I love Slashdot sometimes.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[palegray.net]

You just contradicted yourself:

Additionally, improved communications technology increases the pace of meme distribution, and as a great deal of value of a copyrighted work is in the novel social interactions it enables this shortens its time of highest value.

How, precisely does that jive with your parent post with respect to the value of content not being a determining factor in monopoly length?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

publishers can still print and sell something that is out of copyright. and you're right, 14 years *is* beyond fair.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[unitron]

Is that due to the bandwidth demands of downloading an entire building, or just a commentary on the quality of his work?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Polumna]

In these arguments about copyright terms, I am always stricken by two things: the general assumption that all copyrights should be identical and that copyright is binary.

We could have different copyright terms on different creations... entertainment software could be 5 years, serious commercial trade software like CAD/CAM or 3DS Max could be 15. Reference materials like your guide on N.A. bird species could be the life of the author or 25 years for the publisher. Textbooks similar. Movies 10 years. Etc.

Further, copyright doesn't have to be absolute. As in my above example, after 3 years, all entertainment software could go id-style where the engine is pretty much free and mod-able, but the art remains under control for the duration of the 5 years. Another case that comes to mind were the lawsuits over Harry Potter guides. Say Harry Potter's copyright is 12 years, but after 6, all of this control over derivative works goes away.

I'm not really asserting that this is the right way to go or anything, but it seems obvious to me that a lot of these problems are the result of lumping all copyrightable material into one set of rules. Should flash animation be legally the same as a mural in this context? I don't ever see anybody really asking these questions directly.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

18-22 years would be proper in case the author had any offspring.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

several thousand dollar fee? yeah so only the rich and authors published through a major publishing house can enjoy the right to sue for damages in court when their rights are infringed? fuck that.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[vidarh]

You do pay tax on cash savings in many countries, as well as on any other asset, though usually at a much lower rate than on income.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[vidarh]

You're aware that most book writers are little guys who hardly can even make a living out of it and wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the hope that their work could benefit them and their family durably?

If they do it for the "hope that their work would benefit them and their family durably", then they are fucking stupid. As you say, most can hardly even make a living out of it. Yet they still do it, and they still did it BEFORE copyright even existed. Even today, people still write to self-publish AT A COST with no hope of even recouping the printing cost.

My contention is that the number of people who write primarily because they hope for a major monetary reward is vanishingly small. Even those that dream of being able to even live off their writing is likely a small minority.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

You intend to "make another project" AFTER you die? Seriusly, copyright laws shouldn't be based on the needs of the undead

Re:For those with ebook readers

[SeaFox]

I'd argue 5 years for corporate entities, and 20 years for individuals. With no extensions possible.

If you make it different terms, especially ones this far apart in length, corporations will just have one of their chief officers register all the companies work as an individual and grant a perpetual license to the corporation to use them.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget George, what about sitcom writers?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Lloyd_Bryant]

You realise that when you spend years writing a book based on an entire lifetime's work, after all the struggles of publishing and promoting a book, 5 years seem like a blink of an eye to reap the fruits of your hard work.

You're aware that most book writers are little guys who hardly can even make a living out of it and wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the hope that their work could benefit them and their family durably? You realise that few book writers are Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, right? I don't even think you consider that side of things, I think you only consider your interests. (Disclaimer : my parents were book writers and struggled.)

And do you realize that overwhelming majority of books make the majority of their money within the first year of release? Long copyright terms generally benefit the King's and Rowling's far more that it does the average author...

That said, 5 years *is* a bit short. 20 years, or life of the author plus 10 years, whichever is *shorter*, sounds reasonable to me...

Re:For those with ebook readers

[instarx]

Really? You've never heard of photography?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[u38cg]

IAAL, and my wallet is extremely interested in your proposals and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[OrangeTide]

You likely can't publish photographs of it without my permission either.

Of course if it's a stupid mural, then what's the point. Wasted time and paint.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[OrangeTide]

My game is commercial entertainment for the serious trade of fragging noobs.

One of the problems with a system that has different rules for different content is that it quickly becomes warped as various groups have more powerful lobbyists than others. Music might start off at 5 years, but then end up being 50 years because those guys are way better at this game than the reference book authors.

It can be a little easier to defend the laws from extensions if they are applied "fairly" from the start. Although fairness is highly subjective.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[OrangeTide]

And they absolutely can, but a company might find it a little dangerous to grant a CxO or even a board member an easy way to extort the company for 20 years. In many cases it would be easier/safer to just let your competitors get access to it after 5 years.

If you start a new company, you might have few employees, and the founder can be trusted not to extort his own fledgling company. If you have a big company with thousands of employees and public investors, then the decision to go with a copyright controlled by the group that controlled the company (generally the board) can be the more prudent path.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[harlows_monkeys]

14 years is excessive, as improved distribution methods mean more people can access the work soon after publication than was possible when copyright was originally designed

Lower barriers to entry, improved print technology, second printings, and other improvements since the 19th century mean there is a lot more competition, meaning it takes longer to make a profit on a work. This suggests longer terms, not shorter terms.

Five years is especially ridiculous if we take into account adaptations of the work in other media. Do you really think that five years after an author publishes a novel, people should be free to turn it into movies without the author's permission and without compensating the author?

Re:For those with ebook readers

[daveime]

Ever heard of Compulsory Purchase Orders ?

You *never* really own the land, there's always the possibiity the Government can buy it out from under you at a paltry minimal valuation.

And then of course there's the Vogons ...

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

And i'd like to work a 2 day week in the same job im in now and still get paid the same as I did for a 5-day week...

Sounds pretty unlikely and overly unreasonable when I say it doesn't it? Strange that...

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Hognoxious]

20 years, or life of the author plus 10 years, whichever is *shorter*, sounds reasonable to me...

Me too, but as a professional assasin my opinion is probably biased.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Hognoxious]

The guy's family did not write the things that were under copyright. Giving them money for someone else's work will not cause them to create more, which is supposed to be the purpose of copyright.

I doubt the author is planning to die. However even if he were, the fact that his kids will be provided for is as much (or more) of an incentive to create as getting the money himself.

Pity about your shitty upbringing, if that's the reason you don't grok human nature.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

Photography is not stealing.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[mirkob]

your position is quite reasonable, but in this days and media ages...

many type of media and entertainment productions simply disappear after few (3-5) years period, at least in any reasonably accessible publication up to completely disappearance.

so copyright much longer than this could mean that a work of some worth simply disappear to oblivion, cutting the copyright limitation will encourage it's circulation and if of enough value it could make publicity for new works of the same author!

Re:For those with ebook readers

[mirkob]

I remember you that the case you describe was the center of the fud used for pushing the first huge copyright extention in history about 170 years ago...

se this:

Macaulay on copyright law

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

to see how it was rebutted.

and remember, know the history or you will repeat it!

Re:For those with ebook readers

[mdwh2]

So some guy spends ages training / doing a degree/PhD for a new job, then he gets hit by a car on the first day of the job. His widow and kids get nothing because of your idiot rule that says he can't get paid when he's dead. How unfair is that!

(I agree that a fixed short term would probably be better, but I don't think that widows and children have some automatic right to earn an income from someone after their death - that's just tough luck, and the financial problems of losing someone is something we all have to face. Take out life insurance like the rest of us have to - that's what it's for. Plus, I didn't think we lived in a world anymore where wives depend on their husband's income, nor do I care if their children might have to go and work for a living like the rest of us instead of living off their inheritance.)

Re:For those with ebook readers

[mdwh2]

Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve. Funerals are expensive too.

Everyone has expensive funerals. Can we get the law written to give us a windfall upon death too?

I know, perhaps we could have some system where everyone pays a small amount, and you get a windfall if you die. It would be opt in, we could call it something like, I don't know, life insurance maybe?

Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything

That's a nice straw man. Of course authors can leave their kids something - possessions, money, exactly the same thing the rest of us leave. The question is whether they should be allowed to give them something the rest of us can't - a continued income.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I just kill you I can start publishing all your work^H^H^H^H applying for your job? You can't hand it off to your children who might need the income due to your untimely death?

You make it sound as though society has some obligation to provide a monopoly to the children of authors in case the author dies in penury. It hardly seems like naivete to suggest otherwise.

Unless, of course, you feel that all sources of income should be hereditary. In that case, at least you're consistent.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Mprx]

The value of the monopoly to the monopoly holder is a determining factor, as this is in important factor in how many resources they are likely to put into authoring the work. The long term value of the work to society is not, as this is impossible to predict.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Mprx]

No, so people don't harm society with monopolies which do not provide incentive to producing new works. Copyright is not supposed to benefit the authors, it is supposed to benefit the public. Benefiting authors is only a side effect.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Mprx]

In the unlikely case that the novel is still popular after five years the author will be able to afford an extension. If the novel is not popular after five years then adapting it into a movie is a risky proposition. If the adaptation succeeds anyway then clearly those who adapted it are responsible for the success. Encouraging authors to sit on their monopolies hoping for this unlikely scenario does not give greatest benefit to the public.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

"...should be nullified upon death..."

Arguable, but copyrights are not bound by the life of the author. For books written between '64 and '78, copyright is 28 years, + an automatic renewal of 67 years. For 'The Crystal World', which was published in 1966, that would put copyright expiration at 2061.

Copyrighted works published after 1978 are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years.

Enjoy.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

> You likely can't publish photographs of it without my permission either.

If you want to restrict who sees it, maybe you shouldn't paint it in plain view of the general public, dumbass.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[vertinox]

Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve.

No, they shouldn't because the intent of copyright was never intended for a revenue stream for surviving family members.

If they feel so inclined they can write their own works or invest in an insurance policy like the rest of us.

Oh and considering my estate will be taxed upon my death, if you really want copyrights to be treated as property that can be inherited then a tax needs to be levied upon it just like any other property.

That said, if the author has created an agreement with his publisher that entails what happens to the earnings from the books sold after his death, then he is free to create one and his family can pursue that with the publisher if they signed a contract.

Otherwise, an author should get no special privileges when it comes to death and in all reality the copyright laws were intended to release the works into public domain long before their death.

If you don't like it, they should have picked another line of work. Heck, even Bill Gates says he isn't going to give all his money to his children. They should have to work like the rest of us.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the mark. The reason that real estate is property in a way that "intellectual property" can never be is that intellectual property can be used by any number of people, simultaneously, without diminishing the ability of each of those people to fully utilize that information. If we quantize real estate into units called "square feet", each unit can only be used for ONE purpose, and usually that purpose precludes other usages. Thus, on a 3000 square foot lot, I may devote 1000 square feet to a "house", 1000 square feet to a "garden" and 1000 square feet to a "pool". Since I *own* the land, *I* (and those whom I allow access) get the usage of that land, and my usage "uses up" the utility of that land for anyone else. TLDR: IP and land are not analogous properties.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[AioKits]

I am so not going to illegally copy your building sized mural. Promise.

I tried to illegally copy it, but I think they got suspicious of me when they noticed I was building an identical wall as to what the mural was painted on only with wheels and a mere 20ft from it...

Re:For those with ebook readers

[sbeckstead]

Pretty disgusting attitude there Linzeal. I'm glad I'm not the buzzard you are.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[sbeckstead]

It sometimes takes nearly a lifetime to produce one work of significance that will last long enough for people to fight over the copyright. Why should you not get to be paid for all that unpaid work time required to produce the work. Why should my posterity not benefit from my work as well. If I produce some thing that has that kind of lifetime appeal I want to be able to pass on the profit to my children. You buzzards that want to be able to pick my bones before I'm cold and take my work for free can go piss up a knotted rope.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not going to copy it, but someone could. I don't necessarily mean in the same format, but as a derivative work.

I'm not talking about simply taking a picture of the city skyline,(as said picture could conceivably add enough editorial value to qualify as fair use,) but about extensively photographing gp's hypothetical mural (and just the mural) and putting it into a coffee table book along with a bunch of pictures of other people's murals, to be sold for profit.

Assuming the latter is done without the addition of any significant editorial value, and that they published it without the artists' permission (or the permission of whomever holds the rights to the work), that would be a violation of copyright.

(I Am Not A Lawyer. I do support copyright reform, but I think artists should be able to be compensated for coffee table books of their work. I thought your comment was Funny rather than Insightful.)

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

This effectively excludes "technology references" as being posted as they are "outdated" in as little as 6 months.

I would suggest that this in itself will contribute to further development of sites such as wikipedia and the knowledge web which make information available free of charge making the printed word even less profitable.

How many times should an artist, performer, or other entertainer get "paid" for a job? I would claim that a computer programmer should be paid every time his code is executed, though this is often not the case.

Should the inventors of the internet have received royalties (the name itself sounds exclusive) then we would not have the Internet.

BTW - this was not Al Gore!!

Dr. Robert Metcalf would probably be one of the people to write a check to.....

It is very ironic to me that a medium designed for free information exchange is at the heart of so many intellectual property disputes and court cases.

Rather than look at the internet as "free publicity", most artists and IP owners want to wring every "red cent" out of the work in question.

Why not look at the internet as "free samples" and build on the notoriety provided to further your work.

And work faster, Everyone else does.

Jim

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Random BedHead Ed]

Is that due to the bandwidth demands of downloading an entire building

Hmmm ... someone's never heard of torrents. :)

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Chosen Reject]

I like the idea of various copyright term lengths, but I don't think they should be automatically grouped by medium or any thing of the like. I think it ought to be based on how much money you are willing to pay. There should still be limits. But we could have system where the longer the terms, the more costly, such as:

• 5 years: $500
• 10 years: $25,000
• 20 years: $100,000
• 40 years: $1,000,000

You could then say 40 years is the maximum, you can renew any time while your copyright is still valid, bu you'll have to pay the higher amount minus what you already paid.

The point of copyright laws (at least in the US) were to act as an incentive to get people to create works that would eventually go into the public domain. We all know that not all works are worth the same. I could put together an album or a book this weekend that certainly would only be worth 5 years of copyright (if that), but Warner Bros. would be fools not to think the Dark Knight is worth at least 10.

This way the creator can estimate how much he thinks he will earn or decide how much that kind of control of his works is worth to him. In the Warner Bros. example, Most of their money will come in the first 5 years (as in almost all cases), but there will be some trickle effect wherein they figure they'll get another million between 5 and 10 years, but decide it won't be worth getting the 20 years. At the same time, J.K. Rowling might decide that since she's releasing (speaking as if she had only released Philospher's Stone) 6 more books over the course of 10 years, with movies not being finished years after that, and knowing that even the last movie will garner interest in the first book, decides for a copyright length of 20 years. Disney would choose 40 years for all of their works regardless of their quality.

I should also mention that I think the automatic copyrighting thing is stupid. If you want copyright protections for your works, file it with the copyright office.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Chosen Reject]

While I agree that copyright terms should be much shorter, I don't think they should end at death. Copyright laws are an incentive to create. For many (if not all) that incentive is financial. If J.G. Ballard decided to write one more book while on his death bed so that his family could profit off of it, that'd be no different than an engineer doing one more year of work while on Chemo so that his family could profit off that. That being said, I do think that the inherited copyright ought to be taxed the same way as any other inheritance. Either tax all income at the inheritance tax rate, tax the remaining length of the term at the same rate (10 years left taxed at 10% becomes 9 years) or both.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[sbeckstead]

Don't know many writers do you. The hope has always been that you will be rewarded for your efforts if not monetarily then by acclaim. Most of them do write hoping that they will make money, even those that self publish. And the result of that acclaim is usually a meal ticket at the tables of the wealthy (well those that can afford to feed more than themselves) who like your work enough to want to talk to you. So your contention is stupid on it's face. You should also educate yourself on the history of the writing profession before you try to set the rewards system for something that you have little apparent use for.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[sbeckstead]

Oh and before copyright if you were caught ripping off someone else work, you pretty much had to leave town. So the moral system break down has affected the necessity for copyright protection nearly as much as the proliferation of media in which derivations of your work can be made.

The copyright system was as much a response to new media forms as it was the necessity for protecting your work for your heirs.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[OrangeTide]

It's call a "copy"right, because it controls your right to copy it. Not your right to view it.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Anonymous Coward]

"And work faster, Everyone else does."

Sorry, not all art is like flipping burgers. You can use those phrases on website and flash developers.

Re:For those with ebook readers

[Tweenk]

I doubt the author is planning to die. However even if he were, the fact that his kids will be provided for is as much (or more) of an incentive to create as getting the money himself.

While we're at it, we could provide him with 100 virgins to increase the incentive. The point is whether the bargain is acceptable to society. The untimely death factor would be catered for if copyright was tied to publication date: even if he died before the book was published, his relatives could inherit the income, while preventing unreasonably long copyright terms.

Pity about your shitty upbringing, if that's the reason you don't grok human nature.

Your ad hominem is rather tasteless. I just don't buy into purely emotional arguments often presented by copyright advocates.

Sci Fi authors don't die.

[jd]

They get abducted by Government agents when their books get too close to the truth. (Tinfoil hats at half price, today only.)

Re:Sci Fi authors don't die.

[sharkey]

All my stories are bullplop. Bullplop!!

Re:Sci Fi authors don't die.

[Repton]

They get abducted by Government agents when their books get too close to the truth.

Hmm, both Stanislaw Lem and Robert Anton Wilson "died" recently. I'm not sure which worries me more :-/

Re:Sci Fi authors don't die.

[MichaelSmith]

Tinfoil hats at half price, today only.

Bob Heinlein seemed to know so much about L Ron Hubbard. It was his bet with Hubbard which initiated Scientology. I always wondered if they could actually be the same person, of if Hubbard was an invention of Heinlein.

Re:Sci Fi authors don't die.

[Nefarious Wheel]

I always wondered if they could actually be the same person, or if Hubbard was an invention of Heinlein.

If he were, I think Hubbard would have been a better writer.

"What price salvation? Remarkably cheap! For only a low initial payment..." -- Stranger in a Strange Land

And who can forget Dr. Ballard's work on...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Backstep Project as featured in the documentary 7 Days.

RE/Search Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad to see him go but sooner or later we all make the little flowers grow.

If anyone is interested RE/Search Publications (http://www.researchpubs.com)

Has most of his works in the paper form...

Re:frirst

[Anonymous Coward]

frirst pst? Fail on both accounts of spelling and position

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

another guy died who did something..... yeah!

"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[QuantumG]

Ya know, that's really not what I read sci-fi for.

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[Sir_Lewk]

"...and most compelling"

Ya know, that's what I like most about sci-fi actually.

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[Hurricane78]

So you are the type of guy that all those unimaginative books and series are made for? Where every goddamn alien looks like a human with some patch on his nose and an unusual haircut, and you can see stranger things on underwater nature tv shows. Where they are in the future and/or in space, and do the same boring shit that they could do in a historic novel. And where you just think: "My god, this is all the futuristic stuff you can come up with?"

No offense. If you like it, be happy. :)
But I for one, just wonder why you read sci-fi then? If the weird futuristic stuff does not matter, and you even dislike it...?

I know that many people create a false dichotomy, that goes like this: Well, the story matters. Not all the weird things.
But in reality, nothing stops you from writing a good story that also includes the weirdest things. In fact there is no reason why that should not add something to it.

"Truely weird in a futuristic way" is the very point of sci-fi, in my eyes. (Good stories are what I expect in any genre anyway, and does not need being specially mentioned.)

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[interactive_civilian]

So you are the type of guy that all those unimaginative books and series are made for? Where every goddamn alien looks like a human with some patch on his nose and an unusual haircut, and you can see stranger things on underwater nature tv shows. Where they are in the future and/or in space, and do the same boring shit that they could do in a historic novel. And where you just think: "My god, this is all the futuristic stuff you can come up with?"

Wow. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from what the GPP said. Personally, I don't read science fiction for the "truly weird" stuff. I read it for the imaginative science, and to me, what science does is take the weird and bizarre and make it reasonable and understandable.

There is so much crap science fiction out there, full of weirdness for weirdness sake: aliens with "weird" numbers of eyes, limbs, methods of communication, etc., most of which are weird simply to be different. It is amazing how rarely anyone gives any explanations for why an alien life form evolved the way it did. They just make them weird to be different, usually to the point that they become creatures of fantasy rather than science fiction.

The same goes with a lot of the technologies that appear in bad science fiction. So many things seem to come out of a magic black box, never really explained, and just taken for granted in the universe of the particular story. Everything from normal everyday technologies to the "truly weird" ways of space travel and waging war. No explanations, just "magic" (yeah yeah yeah, sufficiently advanced technology, I know). Again, these things fall out of the realm of science fiction an into fantasy.

Anyway, point being, most of the best science fiction is firmly grounded in science, rather than taking fantasy and wrapping it in science-y words. And, by being grounded in science, it can't really be "truly weird", because science takes the weird and makes it natural.

That said, I must note that this is NOT a commentary of J.G. Ballard's work. I have not actually read any of his work, and therefore can make no comment.

Also note, I am not disparaging fantasy works, either. I enjoy them quite a lot when they have good stories. I also enjoy the overlap between science fiction and fantasy, as well as many other genres. I enjoy good stories with good writing. I merely am pointing out why at least one reader reads science fiction and prefers the good, hard stuff over the weird.

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

aliens with "weird" numbers of eyes, limbs, methods of communication, etc., most of which are weird simply to be different. It is amazing how rarely anyone gives any explanations for why an alien life form evolved the way it did.

Take The Mote in God's Eye -- weird for weirdness' sake is fine, I think, as long as it's interesting. Yes, it does discuss why they evolved to be that way -- but more importantly, it discusses what the implications of that weirdness are -- beyond the obvious ones of "that extra limb sometimes gets in the way."

So many things seem to come out of a magic black box, never really explained, and just taken for granted in the universe of the particular story.... Again, these things fall out of the realm of science fiction an into fantasy.

Ah, the old debate of soft vs hard science fiction. A quote that I really can't seem to source: You are allowed to predict the automobile, if you also predict the traffic jam.

That is, while it helps to envision science that's actually plausible, given our current knowledge of the way the universe works -- I love that there's no sound or faster-than-light travel in the Firefly universe, for example -- what really makes a bit of science fiction interesting or not, in its scifi elements, is how well thought out they are, not in terms of mechanism, but in terms of consequences.

If you think about it, quite a lot of scifi has elements of mysticism -- even Firefly, or Dune, will have things like psychics, prescients, things that really haven't been explained, and might not be possible -- but make for amazingly fun "what if" stories.

I'm not sure where you draw the line; where that becomes fantasy. I don't really care much -- I'd rather read good fantasy than bad science fiction.

And in both cases, weird-to-be-weird can be fun, but it's not whether the weirdness has an explanation -- for example, it really doesn't matter precisely how a stilsuit works. What matters is what kind of a culture might evolve among those who spend most of their lives in one -- the Fremen, for example. And the sandworms are cool both because of how weird they are, and because they're deified (Shai Hulud; Shaitan), and because the Fremen have learned to ride them.

If the story just described giant sandworms, and how you can have that whole ecosystem work on a planet with so little water, and gave precise schematics for how to build a stilsuit, I don't know that it would improve things.

That said, I must note that this is NOT a commentary of J.G. Ballard's work. I have not actually read any of his work, and therefore can make no comment.

I must admit the same thing.

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[east coast]

Take The Mote in God's Eye -- weird for weirdness' sake is fine, I think, as long as it's interesting.

Ok but what about those of us who are more the Dream Park type of sci-fi fans? In your post you mention hard versus soft sci-fi. I've always considered myself the "hard" sci-fi fan because I've always leaned more towards sci-fi that is possible within my lifetime and doesn't need to make far fetched assumptions. The "What if" within the limits of solid known science has always been more enjoyable to me than the "Make it so" sci-fi that neglects science or turns science into another magic trick.

Aside from Contact I don't even find alien involvement especially appealing in science fiction. I'm sure there is more science fiction that involves aliens as more of a plot element than an active force in a story line, much like Contact, but I just haven't read it.

If you think about it, quite a lot of scifi has elements of mysticism -- even Firefly, or Dune, will have things like psychics, prescients, things that really haven't been explained, and might not be possible -- but make for amazingly fun "what if" stories.

I can only speak for Dune in this case as I've never seen/read/heard anything much in the way of Firefly but I find Dune as very soft sci-fi. So soft that I wouldn't feel bad towards someone who didn't consider it sci-fi.

I feel that the line between fantasy and sci-fi has become too blurred. To be frank, your use of the word "mysticism" in relation to Dune is really just a polite or politically correct way to call out the down right religious aspects of the story without having to say the word "God." Not that I'm offended by it but given current company I think you can understand what I'm getting at but just to put my cards on the table: Dune has about as much sci-fi value as The Bible if you could dismiss both "mysticism" elements as fantasy or if you embraced both elements are truth.

I feel the same way about books like The Exorcist. If you're not of the persuasion that The Exorcist has a possible truth to it than it's great fantasy horror but if you believe the concepts of demonic possession as possible than The Exorcist becomes a great "what if?" novel.

I know it's a bit long winded but to wrap it up I'm basically trying to illustrate the point that the really speculative "what if?" type of sci-fi is no more science fiction to people like me than The Bible is in relation to Dune.

Recently CSI did an episode where one of the lab techs made a pretty solid point that Mr. Ed is more sci-fi than Star Trek because the chance of a horse mutating to the point that he could talk was a lot more scientifically sound of a "what if" concept than being able to travel faster than the speed of light. At least of Einstein is to be trusted....

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[interactive_civilian]

Fair enough, and I agree with you on pretty much every point. And I do enjoy both 'hard' and 'soft' science-fiction. I like the hard stuff (Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc) because the nearness to reality gives me a more visceral experience. I'll probably never actually make it into orbit and almost certainly never step foot on Mars, but, because of the 'hard science fiction' I've read, I feel I have a pretty good idea of what it would be like (I have a rather active imagination).

On the other hand, I like the 'soft' stuff because it blows my mind quite often.

Basically, good writing is good writing and good stories are good stories. If "truly weird" takes away from the story or distracts me from the story, I tend not to like it. Same with bad science or science that is just so out there that it makes me stop reading the story and say, "now, hang on a minute!".

The lines between genres are blurred anyway, so as long as the story is told well and the elements being used add to the story, rather than detract, then it's all good. However, bad writers often seem to use "truly weird" to cover up their inadequacies in story telling. Though, to be fair a lot of equally bad writers use raw facts and hard science in the same way. ;)

As Stephen King often stresses, "Story, dammit! It's all about story." :)

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[Captain Sarcastic]

As Stephen King often stresses, "Story, dammit! It's all about story." :)

I was going to write something longer elsewhere, but this seems to sum up what I was going to say.

It's just a story, written for entertainment. No need to read serious predictions of the future into it.

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[chthon]

I think that most of the best science-fiction is firmly grounded in logic, and that is where most fantasy literature fails.

If you really want to compare bad science-fiction with weird, you should read the works of R.A. Lafferty.

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[YourExperiment]

You're painting a false dichotomy here. The distinction is not between "science" and "weird", it is between fiction that is derivative and tedious, and fiction that explores interesting ideas.

The "weird" stuff you're complaining about falls into the former category. The latter category consists of the hard sci-fi that you enjoy, which explores various aspects of science, and other forms of sci-fi, which explore other ideas.

JG Ballard, for instance, was a genius who displayed an incredible aptitude for exploring the darker and more warped recesses of the human psyche. This may or may not be to your tastes, but it is not "weird for weird's sake".

Re:"Truely Weird" no thanks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I've always leaned more towards sci-fi that is possible within my lifetime and doesn't need to make far fetched assumptions.

"Possible within your lifetime" isn't a prerequisite -- after all, it's very unlikely that anyone will build a generational space colony or a dyson sphere (or even a ringworld, or even an orbital/Halo) within your lifetime. However, all of these things seem possible.

Granted, much of the stuff on Ringworld was downright fanciful. But the world itself seemed mostly sound. (I say "mostly" because it's had to be adjusted, but these were in details like what it must be made of, and what might be done to stablize it. It's still possible, just very difficult and resource-intensive.)

To be frank, your use of the word "mysticism" in relation to Dune is really just a polite or politically correct way to call out the down right religious aspects of the story

Actually, no, I'm talking about "mysticism" with respect to things like how the spice affects prescience.

What you seem to have missed entirely is that Dune is perhaps one of the more cynical views of religion that I've seen. The Bene Gesserit create religions. They take local superstitions, manipulate them just slightly, plant the seeds of myths and legends...

This is the Missionaria Protectiva -- so called because if a Reverend Mother finds herself alone on a planet, in a culture which has been seeded in this way, she can take advantage of them.

This is exactly what Paul Atreides does. The Mahdi was the legend. I don't remember if Paul knew about it -- I know his mother did.

The other Dune novels, while they do get stranger and stranger, also have a habit of not just trivializing what had been done in previous novels, but watching things progress from mysticism to science. For instance, at one point, the Spice (and a Guild Navigator) were required for space travel -- later on, the Ixians, I believe, reproduced this mechanism artificially. This was a disruptive technology -- before this, both the guild and whoever was in charge of Arrakis would control space travel, as is elegantly demonstrated by Paul Atreides declaring himself Emperor after seizing control of that one planet.

But, just like with the science in science fiction, occasionally some of it is invented without being entirely explained.

And I'm a bit biased, having seen computers totally mutilated in nearly every appearance on TV or in the movies... but I'd much rather an author either defer to an authority who would know, or simply leave whatever it is unexplained.

Because technobabble just ends up looking obsolete once we know more about it, and likely already sounds stupid to people who know. For example: Lightsabers. They're clearly meant to be laser swords. They clearly can't be laser swords. Clearly, they must be plasma trapped in a force field... and it goes downhill from there.

Contrast this with Firefly: Many parts of it are realistic (no sound in space, no faster-than-light travel...) The parts that aren't, they at least don't usually pretend to explain (inertial dampeners, artificial gravity, what kind of fuel is used...)

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Save me zombie/baby jebus!

Farewell Shanghai Jim.

[m487396]

Cartographer of the inner future. http://www.jgballard.com/

JG Is Now A Voice Of Time

[cybrpnk2]

Among his other works, JG Ballard's short story The Voices Of Time had a huge impact on me as a teenager and has haunted me thru this very day. IMHO the VERY BEST SF story depicting man's place in an uncaring universe. Farewell, JGB, and thanks for your works.

Re:JG Is Now A Voice Of Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminal Beach is my favorite J.G. Ballard short story. All of his sci-fi stuff is great, much of it dark and disturbing. If you like the music group Joy Division, then you may know that Ian Curtis was heavily influenced by Ballard, and even named a song, Atrocity Exhibition, after a Ballard story.

Re:JG Is Now A Voice Of Time

[b4dc0d3r]

I have not heard of this guy, and while I usually think whoop diddly bang whop another bloke is dead, in a bit of a sing-songy voice, right near, but not actually in, the back of my head, no, I mean closer to the front, this guy seems like a hoot and I'm happy the internet brought me something new today.

Update: captcha = hooted.

Re:JG Is Now A Voice Of Time

[Have Brain Will Rent]

"Concrete Island" is the work of his that I most remember reading back then.

Re:JG Is Now A Voice Of Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I vividly remember reading "The Terminal Beach" in a science-fiction anthology when I was a teenager.

It really stood out - among stories that often dealt, if not with spaceships and aliens, then at least with futuristic societies and the social implications of technological progress, Ballard penned something... very different.

It was entirely unlike all the other stories in the anthology. And while I liked a number of the other stories, it was an order of magnitude *better*, too - not just good, but great.

Looking at that Wikipedia article, "The Voices of Time" is another one I read and that I found fascinating (I didn't recall the title since I actually read a translation rather than the English original, but it's the same story).

Yeah, we lost a great author today.

Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think you own that house? Other than some government-granted license called a deed you don't. All it takes is a bigger meaner AC to take it from you.

Supremely Ironic Indifferent Technophilia

[meehawl]

Ballard's writing for me was always the epitome of supremely ironic indifferent technophilia and, as such, a template for our hyper-connected present. Considering he first realised his vision during the 1960s, this makes him even more of a legend. The Drought or The Crystal World are just fucking classics. So many Sf writers, and even "non" writers like Cormac McCarthy with The Road, are just excavating the upper layers of mine shafts that Ballard plunged into decades ago.

The volumes of Helen's thighs pressing against my hips, her left fist buried in my shoulder, her mouth grasping at my own, the shape and moisture of her anus as I stroked it with my ring finger, were each overlaid by the inventories of a benevolent technology - the moulded binnacle of the instrument dials, the jutting carapace of the steering column shroud, the extravagant pistol grip of the handbrake. I felt the warm vinyl of the seat beside me, and then stroked the damp aisle of Helen's perineum. Her hand pressed against my right testicle. The plastic laminates around me, the colour of washed anthracite, were the same tones as her pubic hairs parted at the vestibule of her vulva. The passenger compartment enclosed us like a machine generating from our sexual act an homunculus of blood, semen and engine coolant.

Re:Supremely Ironic Indifferent Technophilia

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post another excerpt.

Thanks

Re:Supremely Ironic Indifferent Technophilia

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmm, engine coolant.

Re:i just got off the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama grogans -- what a stink!

Crash is earth-shattering

[matt_morgan]

Crash--a cautionary tale about our love of technology, and a science fiction novel written in the present, with no fictional technology, blew my mind and changed my life. A worthwhile read for anyone (it takes some guts sometimes), but especially for tech people. Give it a shot.

Gasp!

[FeepingCreature]

Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve. Funerals are expensive too. Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything, but seeing as how many authors are broke most of their life, I'm sure he would just be ok with his family getting nothing. I mean, the guys not even in the ground yet and suddenly his life's work should be free? Your logic fails me. I could see maybe like 10 to 20 years or something, but jeez, copyright exists for a period of time after death for a whole bunch of reasons.

Gasp! People are not getting money for something they didn't do! Can't the state do something?

Oh wait.

Re:Gasp!

[retchdog]

Maybe support shouldn't depend on the birth lottery of having a successful $relative.

(And preemptive "bullshit" to the argument that aptitude is genetic. In that case, let's set up a dole based on aptitude tests and be done with it.)

Re:Gasp!

[Hognoxious]

Maybe support shouldn't depend on the birth lottery of having a successful $relative.

You owe me a new keyboard.

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[yndrd1984]

Let us hope that Ballard found the Lord Jesus before he passed into great beyond.
That would have been cool, but you'd think that that kind of discovery would be in all the papers. Besides, I didn't think he was into archeology.

After you die, it's too late.
True, graverobbing works only when some of the participants are deceased.

Maybe it's time for YOU to call on Jesus and turn your life over to His saving grace
Well, I did call on Dr. Jesus Perez-Lopez to save my knee. Two hours of surgery and a little PT, and I could start running again.

No mention of Empire of the Sun ?

[UnknownSoldier]

The movie adaption is half decent.

Re:No mention of Empire of the Sun ?

[in_fla]

Am watching DVD of it tonight in honor.

Re:No mention of Empire of the Sun ?

[The_Myth]

Ironically I only knew him from Empire of the Sun and its sequel Kindness of Women. Both of these two were in a way supposedly quasi-autobiographical of his own experiences at the time.

Re:No mention of Empire of the Sun ?

[j1m 5n0w]

Same here, I didn't know he wrote science fiction. I've only read Empire of the Sun, which is well worth reading, and I liked the movie too ("There are Frigidaires falling from the sky, it's kingdom come!").

Re:No mention of Empire of the Sun ?

[Bj�rn]

IMDB has a movie based on the novel High Rise listed as coming out in 2011.

Go and eat sunglasses on a pool

[abuelos84]

RIP Ballard.
I, for one, will be freely copying my ballard pdf's to anyone who would appreciate such a fine pice of art.

Best Ballard Book

[doug5y]

I think "Vermillion Sands" has to be one of his best novels ever. in fact it's one of the best SciFi novels I ever read!

From the back cover :

Vermillion Sands is J.G Ballard's fantasy landscape of the future - a latterday Palm Springs populated by forgotten movie queens, temperamental dilettantes, and drugged beachcombers, with prima donna plants that sing arias, cloud sculptures, dial-a-poem computers and ravishing, jewel-eyed Jezebels......"

RIP J.G. Ballard.

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you could still accept Jesus after you die; obviously that would be your last chance, but maybe I am mistaken.

Seen Ballard on Ronald Reagan

[drwho]

I loved this guy's work - I've got lots of his novels, and the RE:SEARCH books as well.

I liked 'Concrete Island' a lot. 'Crash' was just a bit too perverted for me.

Gasp!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lonely man with no family fails to see the point in providing for their support!

Re:i just got off the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's Rich African Heritage

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[caerwyn]

Depends on the variety of christian religious craziness you're dealing with. Some are of the "no belief, straight to hell!" variety. Most of the evangelicals are, in fact.

Running Wild + Empire of the Sun

[Hecatonchires]

I had to study these two at school. Such study normally sucked the life out of almost every text, these two I still remember as good stories, despite having to analyse every subtext to death. Running Wild was especially interesting.

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[The End Of Days]

No way, dude. Jesus is infinitely merciful, except in this case. It makes perfect sense.

The future isn't what we thought it'd be...

[Captain Sarcastic]

One other thing to consider about science fiction is that someone makes a prediction, based on the known technology of the time.

In Asimov's introduction to Foundation's Edge, he pointed out that his earlier Foundation books didn't consider the ubiquity of computers for galactic astrogation. In his first books, the pilot would refer to books that contained the locations of star systems, their relative motions, and so forth. His later books had people referring to the ship's navigational computer.

Larry Niven, in an article that he wrote about black holes, pointed out how a discovery about quantum black holes rendered his short story "The Hole Man" incorrect just before it got published. He didn't immediately try to retract the story, he just went ahead and let it go to print. Was this wrong?

We need to remember that these are all (A) speculation as to what the future may be like, and (B) above all, FICTIONAL.

So, perhaps we should lighten up a little bit. (Including me, who at one point tried hard to believe that Niven's "Known Space" series was a prediction of the best possible future.)

Re:The future isn't what we thought it'd be...

[east coast]

I'm sorry but I don't see this as being the case. Like I said it's what *I* enjoy. I'm not scoffing at others, I'm not shouting anyone down (well, at least not as much as you are). If I don't like it than I don't like it. I'm not saying that other authors who write what I don't consider as hard sci-fi aren't good writers, I'm simply stating that I don't enjoy it. Don't try to villify me because I have a standard for enjoyment in this area.

Do I think that writers should revise because they find out their concepts are based on bad science? Not really but I don't hold it against them if they do revise it. In Niven's case it's interesting that he points out the flaw because it's a good example of how bad science makes it's way into science fiction but at the same time shows Niven's integrity. If I were Niven would I have pulled it? Given that Niven does write some pretty soft (by my standards) science fiction I doubt it. The fact that he came clean about it at all makes me wink that that particular incident.

And also don't get me wrong about the fantasy aspect... I've read JRRT stuff and enjoyed it too. I read Robert Asprin as a kid and still fondly look back at the Myth series. Infact, I seen that there was a Myth collection in a two book set with some of the novels that I had missed and considered picking it up just for old times sake. Sadly I just don't have enough time to justify it at this point. But I do have a little love for fantasy but for me to classify anything about fantasy as sci-fi just because I like it doesn't make sense to me.

It's like a co-worker of mine who was disappointed that Tangerine Dream wasn't Prog Rock. I never claimed they were but he figured that just because I like a good amount of Prog Rock that anything else I like had to fit just as well... I would never term them Prog Rock because they're not. They just happen to be a band that a lot of Prog Rockers have taken a liking to. I see the same problem in sci-fi and that's what blurs the line.

Re:The future isn't what we thought it'd be...

[coastwalker]

Absolutely, it seems to me in any case that Ballards science fiction does not interest itself principally in the science or in predicting a realistic technological future anyway. It takes people who (had) existed at the time the works were written and finds out what happens to them when their world does something wierd.

A case in point is the wonderful Crystal World. Assorted characters loosely associated with a medical facility behave strangely as the jungle around them crystallizes. The writing is so good that you believe it could be happening somewhere real soon. Not because of the science, but because the characters are so obviously in that weird world, and they are real. Great book.

For a moment I thought..

[sudog]

.. that this guy was the author of The Crystal Empire:

http://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Empire-L-Neil-Smith/dp/031294070X

That was a horrible book.

But Poor Ballard.. oh well.

Vale, JG B

[ipsender]

Indeed sadness comes with the passing of a courageous writer. Courageous because he attempted the difficult feat of overtly connecting the strange erotic and violent internal world of unconcious (and not so unconscious) fantasy with patterns in and products of human civilisation. His more surreal and difficult work sometimes proposed that the human condition, if not genetics, were somehow pre-ordinately composed with information which could be expressed biologically, in not always adaptive ways, to socially or environmentally bizarre changes and crises. His melding of the more basic human urges with technological sophistication drew a range of extreme responses amongst avid readers and critics, which perhaps suppressed a wider appreciation of some of his predictive ability and linguistic adeptness. It could be argued that a proportion of his surreal writing was a product of the horrors he witnessed in concentration camps as a child, but if so, he took a long time to tell his story in direct terms - in 'The Empire of the Sun'. But even if so, we have been enriched by his foretelling of perspectives on humanity in allegory which few others have attempted. Vale, to a generous story-teller.

Re: let the feast begin!

[macraig]

The Author is dead! Long live the Public Domain!

The dream is unlimited

[dugeen]

He'll live again every time I go through Shepperton

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[daveime]

By "found", I take it you mean in the rhetorical sense, because there has not been 1 scrap of physical proof in 2000 years that Jesus / Any Other God, actually exists.

RIP JGB

[dickbot]

possibly no writer ever stimulated, fascinated and moved me as intensely as JGB routinely did.

one poster mentionned Voices of Time, yes one of the greatest short stories ever written, but others are also must-reads : the Overloaded Man, Manhole 69, Billenium and Theatre of War immediately come to mind.

his style was truly unique, an insane blend of clinical precision and hyper-sensate, almost hallucinatory inventiveness. His lucidity regarding our present collective condition was unparalleled, possibly a by-product of the way his overimaginative mind coped with his bigger-than-life early years (he was interned in a japanese prison camp outside Shanghai when he was 9) and latter hardships (the death of his wife impacted his writing more than any other event in his adult life)

What should one read from Ballard ? Everything.

" Slowly he felt the puttylike mass of his body dissolving, his temperature growing cooler and less oppressive. Looking out through the surface of the water six inches above his face, he watched the blue disc of the sky, cloudless and undisturbed, expanding to fill his counciousness. At last he had found the perfect background, the only possible field of ideation, an absolute continuum of existence uncontaminated by material excrescences. Steadily watching it, he waited for the world to dissolve and set him free. "

The Overloaded Man, 1961

Hope he felt something similar upon departure.

Oh the morbid irony...

[CrashandDie]

... of posting the announcement of someone passing on on "entertainment./..org"...

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no physical evidence that Julius Caesar existed either. Did you have a point?

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[mdwh2]

Well, for starters, billions of people haven't made a religion out of his existence. And if a historian wanted to question the evidence of his existence, it could be done without people claiming that it was some kind of offensive attack on their faith.

Re:May the Peace of Jesus be with Him

[daveime]

No one is asking me to accept Julius Caesar into my life.

Whether or not a kind-hearted carpenter / illusionist existed 2000 years ago is not up for debate. Whether he is in any way related to a "god" is quite another matter.

Anyway, this is news for nerds, not a forum for bible bashers to push their beliefs down my throat.

Re:"Truly Weird" no thanks.

[Bourbonium]

Spelling Nazi corrected subject line (fixed that for ya).

If you haven't read any of J.G. Ballard's work, you can't really apreciate what he did for the field. He was one of the vanguards of the British New Wave/New Worlds movement in the 1960s who re-defined science fiction through narrative experimentation.

Recommended works include Vermillion Sands, which was a truly mind-bending collection of connected short stories; The Drowned World set in a post-apocalyptic future like no other; Concrete Island, which is an urban nightmare almost too strange to describe in a few words, as is his more famous novel Crash, about the most grotesque sexual fetish anyone has ever come up with, and was a perfect vehicle for David Cronenberg to adapt for the screen. "Auto-eroticism" doesn't even begin to describe it.

And, of course, there is his non-sf semi-autobiographical novel Empire of the Sun, a great read by anyone's measure, and probably his most accessible book, which explains why it is the only one of his works Steven Spielberg could ever have filmed.

Re:"Truly Weird" no thanks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

the most grotesque sexual fetish anyone has ever come up with

This is the Internet. I'm fairly sure I could destroy that in about 3 seconds on /b/, but I just ate.

Sounds interesting, though. I may have to check these out.