All the King's Men
I stumbled onto this random article concerning the estate of Jack Kirby suing for rights to the characters he created for Marvel Comics. And it starts out with a characteristically misguided attitude:
In a move the (sic) reeks of opportunism and greed…
(Why I bother with idiot writers who can’t be bothered to edit their work is quite beyond me.)
Opportunism and greed, you say? Well, what do we have a few paragraphs later?
When a programmer working for Microsoft writes a new program and it turns into the major code behind a new piece of Microsoft software, that programmer doesn’t own the rights to his code. He was paid by Microsoft to write it and has already been fairly compensated for his time and effort. He doesn’t have the right to sue once that program starts making millions of dollars, just because he is jealous.
What difference is there, ideologically, between the Kirby estate’s bid for copyright control and Microsoft parlaying some poor, likely underpaid schmuck’s hard work into a million-dollar seller? NONE. That’s CAPITALISM. Opportunism and greed are the cornerstones of this economic system. Already this article’s logic has cancelled itself out. Lesson to wannabe journalists and self-righteous bloggers: check your moral compasses at the door.
A word about the notion of “fair compensation”: Why shouldn't these companies be obliged to pay some small stipend or maintain a profit sharing arrangement with the employees that are directly responsible for their success? If the employee fails to perform and deliver successful work, they are FIRED. No longer paid. If that's fair, then why isn't the reverse - a perennial bonus based on individual contribution - also? Both the film and recording industries maintain this sort of practice. Residuals, royalties, why doesn’t a similarly creative field - i.e. COMIC BOOKS - follow suit? Why is it acceptable for cartoonists to be shat on? Why is it so reprehensible for a family to recoup some fraction of the income they should have received in the first place? The blatant hypocrisy exposed in the general punter is alarming.
“Work-for-hire” is an archaic concept that was always ill defined in relation to intellectual properties. I don’t think either side - either employer or employee - fully grasped the repercussions of such vague contractual agreements. How quick people are to defend the "rights" of corporations over those of individuals is baffling. I assume it relates to the American Dream, the inherent money lust built into any citizen of this Great Country of Ours. But the sides taken are conspicuously ironic. Why should anyone take the side of a huge conglomerate over that of an individual? What’s the motivation there? Jealousy? Resentment? Those are the only two that spring immediately to mind.
A sense of fair play is a matter of reason and logic. Unfortunately we live in a society that is heavily informed by emotional reaction. That element - our “feelings” as they are called - undermine any accurate meting of justice. We are fucked in the head by our own traitorous heart.
Full article here.