The last discussion about dating Marek was fruitful because it made me realize my communication problems.
Biblical scholars are writers. They must publish works, textbooks, articles. Most of them write specialized works for a narrow audience like themselves, using hermetic language and advanced concepts.
Few of them have the talent to write for a general audience. Bart is a brilliant, popular writer published by Harper One and uses his extensive knowledge and extraordinary skills as a professional Bible scholar. Reza is a certified creative writer with excellent writing skills and a poor biblical scholar who can choose foreign material, transform it brilliantly, and then sell it. Too bad he didn’t mention SGF Brandon once. His Zealot is the absolute No. 1 hit in popular biblical studies for the masses.
Both Bart and Reza are extremely talented people who write great books, who are also able to enter the market and maintain their success.
What’s a humble project leader to do in need of great content that fits the market?
Search and wait until someone of Bart’s or Reza’s stature appears somewhere?
There is no time for this. But even if he found someone like that, would he agree to write anonymous texts dictated by the client’s needs?
So he uses a proven method and gathers a team of people. People who are less versatile, less talented, but good craftsmen. Working together, they will provide the right expertise and a good product. This is how it has always been done until today.
Some narrative and character creator, ghost writer, editor – specialist in the dialectic of rhetoric and expression, etc…
It can be done. It will certainly take more time than a single brilliant author, but less time than searching for one.
Everything can be written. Paper, pen and a brilliant head. Or paper, pen and a good team.
Paul’s letters appear authentic to the vast majority of Bible scholars.
The problem is that no biblical scholar has cooperated with a ghost writer as part of the teams responsible for the content product.
The rules of show business are eternal and unchanging. Only technology changes. The artist receives money for performances, for publications, and sometimes for lessons he gives to the children of his patrons. This is how Bart earns, this is how Fryderyk Chopin earned, this is how artists in ancient times earned. There are obvious differences in technology, the price of a copy, the meaning of patronage is changing, the distribution of income and methods of promotion are different. The same thing is always implemented. Show and business.
Bart is a famous intellectual and writer in ancient Rome. He has just written a new book and informed his patrons about it. They will organize a number of appearances to enhance feasts and other social gatherings. There will be new people willing to organize Bart’s speeches. For money and gifts. Nihil novi, same today.
Bart goes to the scriptorium with which he previously cooperated to agree on the terms of distribution of the new book. The amount of the advance payment and the number of free copies are determined. Bart knows how much he earned on the first, second and third books from public appearances, which allows him to estimate how much he can ask the publisher for a new book. The publisher knows how much he has earned previously, the publisher knows the growth rate and also knows how much he can pay. Bart gets the best copies for his patrons, he directs the rest of those interested to the scriptorium or his assistant collects orders.
This is how great artists have worked and continue to work when building their brand and selling it – nothing has changed as far as the rules are concerned.
A ghost writer receives remuneration for his or her time devoted to co-creating a literary work. He does what he is ordered to do based on briefings, comments and remarks. He does not build his own brand publicly, among the recipients of the work. On a daily basis, he may be an employee of a scriptorium, he works in copying, thanks to which he is constantly in contact with literature.
Who commissions an anonymous work composed of 95% fiction based on the LXX, popular romances and other popular literature? Who has an interest in it being created?
A religious organization that has surpluses and wants to spend them on making the current message about its God/Man more attractive, wants to standardize it and conquer new markets through missionary activities or through mergers and acquisitions.
Let’s not forget that religious organizations managed revenues and expenses.
You are welcome.
The rules of show business are eternal and unchanging. Only technology changes. The artist receives money for performances, for publications, and sometimes for lessons he gives to the children of his patrons.
The rules of show business may be unchanging, but show business isn’t publishing.
In the ancient world–as I understand it–there was little financial motive to write. Most authors were men of independent means who wrote because they wanted to–they had something they wanted to say and they had the education and time to put it in writing; see for example Cicero or Catulus. Or perhaps they were recognized as great artists, and a wealthy patron hired them simply to produce great art (though, better if the great art also legitimized the patron’s interests), e.g., Virgil. Others were probably paid performers, who made money by performing, and their literary product was only remunerative insofar as it gave them something to perform (in the vein of Homer or the medieval bards, or Shakespeare, or the hundreds of professional musicians even today who make a living playing live music without ever signing a record deal or selling a track).
Without copyright, the economics of generating literature are very very different from what we see in the publishing industry today. There was nothing like HarperOne in first century Rome.
A religious organization that has surpluses and wants to spend them on making the current message about its God/Man more attractive, wants to standardize it and conquer new markets through missionary activities or through mergers and acquisitions.
Let’s not forget that religious organizations managed revenues and expenses.
This is something different. On your account, are the people running these religious organizations true believers, or are they simply charlatans trying to maximize their personal profit and influence at any cost? Also, if all this is correct, why postulate a ghostwriter that they hired? Why not just say that the person or persons who wanted a gospel to make their message more attractive, to standardize it, and conquer new markets, wrote Mark himself, anonymously?
Dear colleagues, you don’t know what you’re writing about.
How would you know if you didn’t work in the production, licensing and sale of content? It turned out exactly the same. I checked. And the fact that most historians do not know and do not understand the rules of intellectual property trade and therefore cannot properly see them in ancient Rome is not my fault.
Porphyry you present special cases. Bart can also afford to give up fees for some of his publications, public speeches and debates, or donate them to charity. He is the exception in the world of writers, not the rule. This does not change the applicable rules in any way.
The fact that powerful and famous patrons were the driving force behind the artists and played a role in both promoting them and financing their careers to a greater or lesser extent does not change anything. And what are publishers doing today who have taken the place of patrons and are ready to take the financial risk of promoting young writers, bearing the costs of promotion, production, etc. The fact that publishing houses operate for profit does not change this.
A talented poet goes to the scriptorium and leaves his text. The owner can do anything with it – he can reject it, he can admire it and show it to his clients to see their reaction, he can start cooperation with the poet by taking a percentage of his future income, he can find him a patron, he can become one himself.
I don’t know what my anachronism is – money has always been known. The fact that we no longer have golden aureuses in our pockets does not change the rules.
Publishing is only a modern word for much older schemes
Robert
I hope so…
As I wrote. Poetry doesn’t lie. Poets lie constantly. I would also like to always see behind great works that provided me with unforgettable experiences, great people and great motivations. After years of working in content, I will say this – it’s better not to delve into it.
Porphyry, leaders are more complicated. Marcion was apparently an ascetic of great faith and a practical man who saw that he had to bribe someone. Both were in him. It somehow coexisted. Perhaps he was convinced that he had to be great for the glory of God. Who knows?
Everyone knew Paul wasn’t there but it didn’t matter. Therefore, they accepted subsequent letters appearing like mushrooms after rain. They needed written content because it was effective in the hands of their rivals. They needed these made-up stories because they sold better than what they came up with themselves.
you don’t know what you’re writing about. How would you know if you didn’t work in the production, licensing and sale of content? It turned out exactly the same. I checked. And the fact that most historians do not know and do not understand the rules of intellectual property trade and therefore cannot properly see them in ancient Rome is not my fault.
You’ll have to forgive me for not being convinced, on your bare testimony that you’ve checked, that I and most historians are wrong.
The use of laws to enforce intellectual property rights began in the Renaissance. In classical times, there was no such thing, at least not as we would recognize it.
Plagiarism and forgery were recognized in antiquity, but not as an intellectual property violation per se but as simple dishonesty. Bart addresses this in Forgery and Counter-forgery.
Already in the 1st century BC, there were libraries, bookstores and scriptoria in the cities of the empire. And there were writers and readers. There was Roman law and an apparatus for enforcing the law. In the Epigrams, the Roman poet Martialis accused a certain Fiedentinus, and sometimes also anonymous plagiarists who copied his poems in order to claim their authorship, of violating other people’s rights. In addition, there are rules of fair trading.
Is it really that hard to put it together to make sense?
Yes, indeed, people in antiquity had libraries and they had laws. What they did not have was any intellectual property law. There were no copyrights, no patents.
Writers didn’t like being plagiarized or having texts forged under their names. But generally they could do no more than complain, just as your poet did.
But you’re posting about dishonesty.
Simply copying a text was not considered dishonest and did not entitle the author to compensation.
Surely, jarek, you understand that plagiarism and copyright infringement are distinct.
If I check a copy of bde’s Forged out of the library, and I photocopy the entire text, cover and all, to take home, I’ve violated the publisher’s copyright by making an unauthorized copy, even if I never so much as show it to anyone else, but I have not plagiarized.
If I find an old (pre-1927) obscure poem and read it as my own in a poetry competition, I have plagiarized, without violating copyright.
Plagiarism–at least in its egregious cases–is universally regarded as dishonest (not to say illegal). Copying texts without any particular permission is not–it was standard practice for most of western history.
Porphyry, you have two rights to every text you write. Transferable right – copyright and inalienable right – you are the Author and it cannot be sold, unless you worked as a ghostwriter.
Let’s assume that you have concluded a contract with the scriptorium directly. Then they own the copyrights. You take the money, free copies and the matter is closed. There are no revenues from subsequent releases, no royalties from the number of copies sold. A simple contract – only an advance payment and nothing more. Commercial relations have been established – if the text turns out to be a success, there is a chance for further cooperation. The owner of copywrights becomes a specialist who knows how to extract money from the market.
Today it looks different because contracts are more complicated and settled differently, and are limited in time and scope.
A small digression.
My competitor signed a UNLIMITED contract with fantasy writer Andrzej Sapkowski to make games based on his Witcher saga. Sapkowski insisted that he wanted more advance money and that he was giving up royalties. He took a $10,000 advance and waived royalties. He did not believe in the success of the venture. Nothing happened for years – a deal and this small company was taken over by CD Projekt. They released 3 games and sold 100 million copies. Thanks to Polish law, Sapkowski could demand royalties which he gave up himself and received at least USD 15 million for the games sold so far and ?% from those that will be released. He was lucky – in the USA he would not have won the trial and would have received nothing.
The fact that there were many wealthy patrons on the ancient market who prided themselves on supporting hordes of artists without expecting financial profit does not change anything. The fact that a large number of writers came from the upper classes and therefore did not care about prosaic income, but only about their own fame, does not change anything. Then everyone copies and publishes the works of such an aristocratic poet. So what?
Writing and the circulation of books was a business and an important area of life because even administrative prices were regulated. There was also cruel imperial censorship – authors, even employees of scriptoria and owners of copies were killed because of banned books.
Historians describing these matters simply draw unjustified conclusions.
Like biblical scholars regarding the dating of Mark placed around 70 CE. Nihil novi…
Copying for personal use is different than selling a copy for money or publicly posting it on the Internet for free. I have a lifetime license for Klinghardt the Oldest Gospel on the web, allowing me to use the book on 4 devices at the same time. I can have a discussion with 3 people without violating these terms, who can use my personal account.
If a scriptorium invested in a work, it had a short time to make money. There was no temporary protection like today (50 years) – you sold what you sold at the premiere and later copies made by others began to appear.
I really don’t understand what you are saying, Jarek.
The bit about transferable and non-transferable right–do you mean to say that those rights were recognized in Roman law? If so, can you provide a citation? We have extant and extensive works on Roman law from the jurists (e.g., Ulpian, Gauis, Paulus, etc), which discus legal rights under Roman law at length; do you have a passage in any such source that shows the Roman law recognized the sort of rights over intellectual property you are describing?
But then you add this, “If a scriptorium invested in a work, it had a short time to make money. There was no temporary protection like today (50 years) – you sold what you sold at the premiere and later copies made by others began to appear.”
Are you here saying what I’ve been insisting: that there was no copyright in Roman law?
One more thing: “Copying for personal use is different than selling a copy for money or publicly posting it on the Internet for free.” Under US copyright law it doesn’t matter. If you already own a copy of a copyrighted work, you can make limited copies for specific purposes (E.g., archival copies, or format shifting). If you don’t own the work, you can’t make copies unless it falls under “fair use”–which is a considerably narrower exception than people generally realize. Aside from those narrow exceptions, unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work is a violation of copyright and carries heavy statutory damages. (As an aside, I think US copyright law is unconscionable and draconian, but that is another topic.) Obviously, if you are distributing it on the internet or selling it to the public, you are more likely to get a copyright suit brought against you than you are if you make a copy for personal use, but both are violations of the copyright.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)