What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lazaras

Yet further proof that We've been bamboozled 'for our own good' and people that supposedly look out for our interests (because we elected them) don't care what you or I have to say in the face of corporate wishes.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Nice theory, but the reality is that most of Europe was already at life + 70 before the US. The US was in part catching up.

But it still is shameful.

Most books I want to read are works published in the twentieth century, under copyright, and not in print, much less in a Kindle edition.

If you look at the winners of the Pulitizer Prizes for novels, biography, and history, you will see that, without exception I can find, all are available as eBooks if in the US public domain. And most not in the public domain are unavailable except in libraries or as used books. I've seen posters in other threads here claim that most of this stuff is on the darknet, but this is just not true.

To give an example, look at the works of Conrad Richter (1890-1968). Only around half his stuff is in print, and there is nothing for the Kindle except, strangely, one six page short story. If he ever goes public domain, Project Gutenberg or successor will likely get out everything, and have it carefully proofread by multiple volunteers checking each other's work.

Another example is John P. Marquand (1893-1960) -- all that is available for the Kindle, at Amazon.com, is his one public domain book. (Free from Amazon.com, yes, but this makes the point that copyright is not working to get us access to books.)

If we were to look at the work of authors from the 1930's-1960's who were runners-up up to the big prizes, we would find even less.

Is this going to change soon? I doubt it. They still haven't made some of the more recent stuff available on the Kindle (for example, 2002 Pulitzer Prize fiction winner Empire Falls), so it will be a long, long time, if ever, before they get to your average well-reviewed biography published in the 1960's.

I'm not anti-capitalism, but capitalism is so obviously failing to get us access to all except current books and classics that I am amazed e-reading people are defending this system.

The long copyrights are there to protect stuff like movies and bestsellers, with the vast majority of books languishing. For the sake of a handful of books that will still be in print 50-70 years after the author's death, and, yes, Mickey Mouse, millions of books are unavailable.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm not anti-capitalism, but capitalism is so obviously failing to get us access to all except current books and classics that I am amazed people e-readers are defending this system.

But this is capitalism, control of the capital, withholding it, having monopolies, feudalism without the fancy titles. What it isn't, is a free market.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If you look at the winners of the Pulitizer Prizes for novels, biography, and history, you will see that, without exception I can find, all are available as eBooks if in the US public domain. And most not in the public domain are unavailable except in libraries or as used books. I've seen posters in other threads here claim that most of this stuff is on the darknet, but this is just not true.

We are in an awkward transition period, true, but that is about to change. For new works, things like these will also be published as ebooks and you will be able to purchase them. And because they are published as ebooks, they will (for the most part) never go out of print again, since there is virtually no cost to continuing to offer them. Twenty years from now, not being able to locate a copy of an ebook will be a thing of the past, aside from an ever-shrinking pool of "old" books.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Andrew H, I'm not certain you grasp the difference between Real and intellectual property. The difference is massive and important.

There is a difference, but that doesn't alter the fact that IP can be sold, traded, licensed and so forth. It is an "important" distinction to the extent that the law should (and often does) distinguish between the two categories.

However, it is simply the case that this society treats intellectual works in ways highly similar to material property -- we sell it, lease it, license it, give it away for free, or otherwise transfer it using the same methods and coin of the realm.

As such, the term "intellectual property" is perfectly servicable, and sufficient for us to generate laws that acknowledge and account for the distinction from material property classes.

And of course, there is one critical concept you seem to overlook: "Physical property" is just as much a social construct as "intellectual property." Andrew H seems to have picked up on that. Have you?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But it still is shameful.

Why, because no one is handing you exactly what you want, in the precise package you want, at exactly the moment you demand it?

Feeling entitled much lately?

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Is this going to change soon? I doubt it.

Oh, ye of little faith.

When digital music first went on sale, huge swaths of titles were unavailable. iTunes touted a "mere" 200,000 songs. Less than 7 years later, it reportedly offers 14 million songs.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm not anti-capitalism, but capitalism is so obviously failing to get us access to all except current books and classics that I am amazed e-reading people are defending this system.

You may not be anti-capitalist, but you sound rather entitled and impatient.

Ebooks are still less than 10% of the US market for ebooks -- and a much smaller slice elsewhere. As market share increases, the financial incentives will increase, and more books will become available.

Oh, and don't forget Google is running around scanning everything in sight with commercial intent, and forcing an evaluation of how to handle orphaned works.

I don't think you will really have all that long to wait.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Twenty years from now, not being able to locate a copy of an ebook will be a thing of the past, aside from an ever-shrinking pool of "old" books.

We are talking about many millions of old books not available as eBooks. And unless scanning gets far better, it is still going to require a lot of human proofreading before a book can become a decent eBook. And consider that cutting scan errors in half -- quite a difficult artificial intelligence feat -- would by no means reduce the cost of proofreading by half. If anything, you have to concentrate harder when there is less to find.

So it is still going to be the case that Project Gutenberg gets its proofreading for free (see www.pgdp.net), giving neglected public domain books a big cost advantage, when it comes to digitization, over neglected still-under-copyright books.

Now, it may be that in twenty years, you won't be interested in much of anything more than thirty years old. I don't know. But if I live that long, I expect to still be pretty much of a twentieth century guy.

Given this, if somebody in Washington wants to champion shorter copyright, unless he or she is utterly irresponsible in other areas, they have my vote.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

iTunes touted a "mere" 200,000 songs. Less than 7 years later, it reportedly offers 14 million songs.

And yet, they don't have much of anything from my all-time favorite LP/CD series, Ben Bagley's revisited (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bagley).

Maybe my taste is strange. On the other hand, most of the books I read are found in public libraries, which I continue to use. Unfortunately, the Bagley LP's, although common in libraries at one time, have since worn out and been discarded.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Maybe my taste is strange.

Clearly. Or at least obscure.

Apparently the Bagley recordings are available on CD. Did you miss that detail?

http://www.showmusic.com/PaintedSmiles/psorder.htm

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Oh, and don't forget Google is running around scanning everything in sight with commercial intent, and forcing an evaluation of how to handle orphaned works.

But they are doing so in violation of copyright laws, and throwing their weight around to get their actions legalised. Doesn't that rather go against your arguments that current copyright law is 'working', for whatever definition of working people are using?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Exactly. Copyright protection ensures, above all else (to me, at least), that if I create something I get first option to do with it as I wish, including profit from it.
.....

Actually, copyright limits what you can create before that.

Can you create a Bilbo Baggins adventure? No.
Can you create a Elvis Presley remix? No.
Can you create a photograph of moonlight over Half-Dome? No.
Can you create a new episode of Rawhide? No.

You'll need special permissions from some copyright holder who can veto your ideas.

OTOH, the lack of copyright permitted the release of a masterpiece like Dan Simmon's Ilium....

I think copyright is a limit more than an incentivator for creativity....

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

....
And of course, there is one critical concept you seem to overlook: "Physical property" is just as much a social construct as "intellectual property." Andrew H seems to have picked up on that. Have you?

IP and copyright are completely different concepts.
The Comedy's IP is still Dante's, even without copyright.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Apparently the Bagley recordings are available on CD. Did you miss that detail?

http://www.showmusic.com/PaintedSmiles/psorder.htm

That web page has been a blind alley since Painted Smiles records went out of business.

I don't know why those CD's, some of which sell used for $100 and more, are all out of print and not sold as MP3's. But as for books, there is the additional costly barrier to digitization, not a factor in putting a 25 year old CD onto iTunes, of having to carefully proofread.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Can you create a photograph of moonlight over Half-Dome? No.

Is the Half-Dome and moonlight anyone's intellectua property? Just because someone took a photo of Half-Dome in moonlight doesn't mean you can't do the same, however famous the other photograph may be. It may just not look like a copy of the first one.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But they are doing so in violation of copyright laws, and throwing their weight around to get their actions legalised. Doesn't that rather go against your arguments that current copyright law is 'working', for whatever definition of working people are using?

I do view orphaned works as a problem, but don't believe that throwing any suspected / alleged / potential orphaned work into the public domain is an ideal solution.

I also do not support Google's massive violation of copyright, the use of litigation over legislation to fix the issue, or that a solution to orphaned works only be available to Google.

However, their actions do seem to be forcing the issue -- a silver lining.

I believe they can also continue to scan the works, just not use the scans commercially until the titles are in the public domain.