[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Kali, please calm down and try not to make it personal.

OK. I'll just repeat, yet again, a few of the things that make your concept completely unworkable, that you have repeatedly failed to address.

• Formats come and go far too fast, and are too numerous, for your plan to work.
• The basic concept does not apply to many types of work that still deserve protection, including periodicals, photographs, screenplays and performance art, to name a few.
• There is absolutely no reason why an author, artist or publisher should be forced to put out their work in a specific format or medium -- or even keep it in print.
• Publishers should not be forced to put out content on any time frame other than the one they decide, since that can often hinge on various commercial aspects.
• Licensing or buying the rights is always an option, except for orphaned works. I.e. there is already a solution for much of these issues, for those who are actually willing to put a little money on the line and accept the responsibility of fulfilling the obligations to the artists.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I'm saying that the court should look at the efforts of the Perry Mason copyright holder.... if no good faith efforts to publish the book were made, then the copyright holder would receive zero damages because he suffered no loss.

Or, if you're convinced that this is a viable commercial opportunity, you could locate the rights holder and buy/license the rights. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I don't see how my proposal would strip author's of their royalties as you allege. As I mentioned above, the govt could include in the law a minimum royalty to be paid to the author which would be a healthy percentage.

Once a book goes into public domain, no more royalties need to be paid. That's pretty much how it works. Your proposal isn't a "first come, first serve" situation.

Once you open up the rights, anyone can produce the book. Even if you establish some sort of "minimum royalty," this could easily be a fraction of the original royalty. And, of course, these other companies have no relationship with the authors, no contractual obligations, no auditing requirements -- and thus little inclination to pay what they might owe.

This may work for orphaned works, where there isn't another viable option. But yet again, photographers -- who routinely get ripped off even with current laws in effect, and often have to fight to assert their copyrights -- will perceive this as a massive loophole. Take a look at the reaction of the Digital Economy Act of 2010 in the UK, and you'll see that a system like this is going to require very careful attention to placate those types of artists.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I don't object to bean counters going for the home run. But when it comes to their back catalogues... I say "Lead, follow or get out of the way."

Yay, yet more slogans. At least your old one was relevant....

At any rate, if this is your position, let the people who want to release it take a risk, and buy or license the rights.

If the problem is that copyright terms are too long, then that's easily fixed -- by shortening the terms. Otherwise I see no reason why someone should get free access to content decades before it's scheduled to go into public domain -- especially when the trigger is so vague, fast-changing and difficult as "deliver the book in a specific format."