tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post4897520142762095179..comments2024-03-26T09:32:26.565-05:00Comments on Sherlock Peoria: If corporations are people, what is Sherlock Holmes?Sherlock Peoriahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09896656391037436805noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-69398804750713203992014-07-11T07:28:39.028-05:002014-07-11T07:28:39.028-05:00Thanks for clearing up your position. And I hope t...Thanks for clearing up your position. And I hope the out come is what you hope for.JohnFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13294886206454693626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-66650004626447026122014-07-10T12:45:40.902-05:002014-07-10T12:45:40.902-05:00Only a fool (and some would call me that) would ha...Only a fool (and some would call me that) would have brought this suit for personal profit. The license fee that the Estate demanded for the new book, "In the Company of Sherlock Holmes," was a tiny fraction of the legal fees. Maybe the book will be a best-seller, and maybe it will be only a modest success. Either way, it's a wonderful book, and we wanted to share it with the public. While we hope that the Court will require the Estate to pay all of the legal fees, this case was brought--gulp, this is a lawyer about to say something awful--as a matter of principle. <br /><br />We believed that the Estate was scoffing at the law, saying that different rules applied to the Estate than other copyright owners. The consequence of their economic position was that they effectively "bullied" many, many creators into paying them a license fee. We thought that was unfair. <br /><br />Was the case about money? Certainly it was for the Estate, and you might say that it was to save all those creators money that we brought the case. Really, though, it was about following the law. <br /><br />Has the Estate refused to license some bad works? No doubt, but they've licensed some junk too. Why should the Estate be the arbiter of "quality"? The market--readers, viewers--is perfectly capable of doing that without the Estate's help. If you don't like "Sherlock Holmes vs. Dinosaurs," don't watch it, don't buy it.Leslie S. Klingerhttp://www.lesliesklinger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-41464741612687674082014-07-09T09:15:23.337-05:002014-07-09T09:15:23.337-05:00That would be an excellent question for Les Klinge...That would be an excellent question for Les Klinger, as I can't see how he's going to make any more money off of Sherlock Holmes as he's going to spend in legal fees. And I don't think we can lump all those in favor of "Free Sherlock" into the money-grubbing bastards category. As with Edgar Smith in days of old, some just want to make absolutely sure that Sherlock is free for all sorts of creativity, including for those like fan authors or this blogger, who don't make a dime off of their hobby.Sherlock Peoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09896656391037436805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-38051978432731607842014-07-09T07:55:48.971-05:002014-07-09T07:55:48.971-05:00But all those trying to 'Free Sherlock' ar...But all those trying to 'Free Sherlock' are not doing if for any other reason than to make money off of Sherlock Holmes. How are they any different?JohnFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13294886206454693626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-71697514081186156682014-07-08T22:39:26.160-05:002014-07-08T22:39:26.160-05:00Okay, I'm retracting that last sentence upon g...Okay, I'm retracting that last sentence upon getting more information. Proper post to come when I'm less sleepy.Sherlock Peoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09896656391037436805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-85686528390972038562014-07-08T10:18:54.482-05:002014-07-08T10:18:54.482-05:00I'd consider removal of what's basically a...I'd consider removal of what's basically a private tax on writers and other creators as a pretty just cause. We haven't really seen any instances of the Doyle Estate Inc. trying to protect an image, just collecting license fees.Sherlock Peoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09896656391037436805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-21157809622274394732014-07-08T10:00:01.978-05:002014-07-08T10:00:01.978-05:00Both sides are fighting for there own interests.
D...Both sides are fighting for there own interests.<br />Doyle estate may be the more moral of the two sides. <br />The other side is only in it for the money and not any great cause for man kind or readers.<br />Much of what the Doyle estate is doing is trying to protect an image, whether it dies protecting or not.<br />Same with Disney, and peanuts, and Calvin and Hobs.JohnFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13294886206454693626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6512050174377678428.post-33771799841973365212014-07-08T08:49:30.728-05:002014-07-08T08:49:30.728-05:00Very nice piece. Could I incorporate Sherlock Hol...Very nice piece. Could I incorporate Sherlock Holmes as a person, determine my own publishing regime and my own religion (religion of Detecting?).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com