[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Keep in mind that I am referring to how the world would be if I wrote the law, not my interpretation of the law as it currently stands.

That's fine, the question is whether you are considering the implications of your suggestions.

For example, let's say that we limit copyright strictly to "life of the author." David Foster Wallace published Infinite Jest in 1996 and died in 2008. Should all of his work go straight into public domain that instant? Should the publisher stop paying the estate any royalties upon his death? Should any publisher have the right to put out Infinite Jest? Or any Hollywood studio put out a movie based on the book, minutes after his demise?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

It is my view that once a work is released to the public, the author, etc., should not have the legal right to later withhold it from the public.

On what basis? That the public has the right to whatever content they please, in any form they demand?

If I write an academically researched anti-technology screed, should I be forced against my will to issue it in a digital format?

If I record an album and decide that it is utterly loathsome, should I be required by law to keep it in print?

If a book winds up being an expensive commercial failure, should the publisher be required to continue to incur expenses to release it?

Charles Pellegrino wrote The Last Train from Hiroshima, and it turned out that it relied heavily on demonstrably false testimony about historical events. Should the publisher be required to sell it indefinitely, despite the damage to their reputation and the potential harm of distributing misinformation?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Copyright law grants a monopoly on a specific product to the copyright holder. In my view, this monopoly should be contingent upon the "use it or lose it" philosophy. The govt should not enforce the rights of the copyright holder who does not keep his work available to the public.

So instead, publishers should be what -- required by law to immediately and indefinitely issue works with minimal commercial value? That if a book is not in print for 6 months, it goes into public domain?

Not to mention that many of these books are still available in print form. Should a publisher lose the rights because they haven't released it in a specific medium? And which formats qualify? If the ebook is published in MOBI but not ePub, does the publisher lose the right to issue the ebook in ePub?

Orphan works are definitely a problem, and require a solution. But that criteria has to be based on something a bit more substantial than "no one is publishing it in the medium I want yet."

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Yes, if a corporation feels that the sales potential of a back catalogue title does not justify the effort of putting it out, I believe that anyone else should be free to publish it without fear.

And you don't foresee any problems with this approach?

• When, exactly, do you start the clock on this? Ebooks have been available, in some form or another, for over 10 years, probably longer. Should the publishers have invested millions in ebooks the instant they became a conceptual possibility?
• Back in the late 90s, the CD-ROM was all the rage, and everyone assume it would be the medium of choice going forward. Should the publishers have been required to release their entire back catalog instantaneously on CD-ROM, or lose all rights?
• What if the author wants the book available in paper, but not digitally or not in an audio book? Should they be penalized by the loss of control and royalties because they don't issue the book in the formats and mediums YOU want?
• Again, if a system of access to orphan works are improperly managed this would create a massive loophole in the current system, which would result in countless content creators losing royalties and losing control over their work.
• Again, in many cases a paper book may still be in print, or available via print-on-demand. All it would take is for a publisher to say "that book is available via POD" and copyright is maintained, as long as there is a rights holder still in existence.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

If a corporation does not have the staff to do what it takes to publish its property, then the govt should not recognize its ownership of that property anymore.

As determined by whom? By what process? Do you really think it's the job of a government to declare that a corporation needs to spend X in order to maintain its rights?

And yet again: Should a refusal to put a book out in one specific medium result in the total loss of rights?


Granted your proposal is not presented in great detail, and again orphan works are an issue that needs to be carefully resolved. But your comments here sound much more like an expression of consumer frustration and consumer entitlement than a genuine workable solution.