My reaction is just the opposite. I enjoyed the writing, as I do with most of Robinson's stories, but I thought the premise about copyright was laughably absurd.

Supposedly there is only a finite number of songs, stories, etc., so authors and artists will be shut down because everything will have been done before. Therefore we not only need to limit the time span of copyright, we need to be sure that we forget old art so that we don't realize that new art is a retread of the old.

That's ridiculous; the number of permutations possible for colors, notes, words, is practically unlimited. The story demonstrates a fundamental innumeracy in failing to understand that the number of possible works of art is far greater than the number of atoms in the universe. We are in no danger of running out of ideas, whether copyright is extended or not.

Besides, the notion of restricting copyright just to encourage artists to submit retreads of tired old ideas is abysmally stupid. Art should be novel and creative, not a warmed-over rehash.

"Melancholy Elephants" is a brilliant idea (how ironic, an original idea about the lack of original ideas), but as fiction it's a terrible story, consisting largely of a lecture delivered to a person who helplessly sputters "but ... but ..." and who is supposed to be articulate and intelligent but never shows it. Yep, this is a Heinlein homage, all right.

But yes, it's an important story. It seems to me that the really important point in it is not that ideas are finite in number, so much as the observation that the source of new art is ideas derived from previous art, works that were in the public domain but are now ceasing to go there.

OH, the agony! I never even made it to the part about copyright. I mean, come on. This is just atrocious. How about a second draft, or even just a second read-through before unleashing this breathless squirming poo on the innocent masses.

Yet another tribute to Heinlein. He even dedicated it to Ginny. He really loved that guy. Funny to see a tale on copyright have so many RAH themes and even whole lines lifted from RAH's work. Not that I'm complaining. Between Spider and Feinteuch it's like Heinlein's still with us. Almost.

In view of the ConJose panels I attended regarding copywrite, this is a fascinating story. Wish I had read it before the convention.

Pat, maybe I'd be better off explaining why I posted that last comment in the wrong discussion? Two words: brain damage.

Thank goodness. One other person who saw Ghostworld. Could you please tell me what that ending was about?