France: All your books are belong to us

[taustin]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Sounds like something the Nazis would do.

More like something communists would do. Which is more in keeping with French history for the last half century or so.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

What France is proposing is actually quite interesting, but they're doing it in response to a problem created by long copyright periods; this solution more of a bandaid than anything.

The new law deals with works that were published as recently as 2001 -- i.e. 11 years ago.

It's not a duration issue.

[Giggleton]

It sounds like it might work, although if French legislation is anything like united states legislation, what will happen as a result of this thing is anyone's guess. But I do like the idea of ending copyright. If that entails governmental/public ownership of all texts then so be it. As long as the public is still able to access whatever, whenever they wish everything should be fine.

[DiapDealer]

Can I buy you a new schtick? Yours is getting a little tattered.

[tubemonkey]

Mickey Mouse deserves forever copyright

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by teh603

Not likely to ever happen unless Disney can get perpetual copyright over everything it produces. After all, that's what's pushed every single copyright extension bill in the US; Mickey Mouse being about to enter the public domain.

I have a cousin that (like almost everyone else in SoCal) used to work for Disney. Her feelings about Disney? "Life sucks working for the rat."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the Disney characters that actually had value. The works that were about to fall out of copyright had very little value to the corporation. Wouldn't it have made more sense to protect those characters under trademark laws and find some way to let the works to fall into the public domain without violating the trademarks?

As for the French law, this sounds a bit like compulsory licensing for music. In that respect, I don't think that it sounds very innovative or tyrannical.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I see what you're saying. They should push copyright reform instead of copyright grabs...

While I completely agree that copyright reform is sorely needed, any reform would be very unlikely to affect anything copyrighted before the relevant law was passed. It sounds like what they are doing is a good thing, but it really should be done alongside copyright reform.

[spindlegirl]

The fact that this was not a stretch to believe says a lot.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The new law deals with works that were published as recently as 2001 -- i.e. 11 years ago.

It's not a duration issue.

This does seem very odd. 11 years isn't very long at all.

I think orphan works legislation would be more appropriately applied to (say) works first published 50 years ago or more, and where the book is now out of print and the last printing was more than 20 years ago.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This does seem very odd. 11 years isn't very long at all.

I think orphan works legislation would be more appropriately applied to (say) works first published 50 years ago or more, and where the book is now out of print and the last printing was more than 20 years ago.

The internet has produced a lot of orphan works, though. If you go into the wayback machine, you can probably find a lot of things that were abandoned by their creators- fanmade RPG supplements, stories, stuff like that. I've got a hunch that setting it for 2001 was done to help deal with some of those early orphan e-works.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The new law deals with works that were published as recently as 2001 -- i.e. 11 years ago.

It's not a duration issue.

I don't see how that makes it not a duration issue or at least related to duration. One of the negative effects of long copyright is that more obscure works tend to be lost before they can reach the public domain, and the stated principle of this Act is to allow the public to access works that are unavailable.

If I were to draft a new law on this subject, why would I limit myself to books that are decades old? Wouldn't it make more sense to start more recently to prevent obscure works from being lost?

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Mickey Mouse deserves forever copyright

Ya, he sure does, except for the fact that:

(a) copyright isn't a property right;

(b) it defeats the purpose of copyright (balancing creator rights versus those of the public);

(c) it would involve ignoring the entire history of copyright; and

(d) it makes no sense whatsoever.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ya, he sure does, except for the fact that:

(a) copyright isn't a property right;

It can be; just change the law.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I don't see how that makes it not a duration issue or at least related to duration.

This law applies to out-of-print works that are as recent as 11 years old.

Unless you're going to suggest a 5-year copyright term as ideal, this law is not addressing a duration issue.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

If I were to draft a new law on this subject, why would I limit myself to books that are decades old? Wouldn't it make more sense to start more recently to prevent obscure works from being lost?

Or, you could stipulate that the government agency will scan out-of-print books, but not distribute them until the copyright expires.

It's pretty clear that the goal is to make out-of-print material available, not to archive it for future use as public domain.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

One of the negative effects of long copyright is that more obscure works tend to be lost before they can reach the public domain,...

Mandate renewal every X years. Failure to renew places the work in public domain. That resolves the issue of orphaned works.