Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
...I see no reason why someone should get free access to content decades before it's scheduled to go into public domain --
|
Kali, I take it that the "someone" you refer to is a publisher rather than the consumer. The reason they should get access is because the author is not making a good faith effort to get his book in print, and is therefore withholding it from the public. It is not difficult for the author of an out-of-print book to have his work made into an eBook.
It is my view that once a work has been released for public consumption, the public has a right to have it available (or more literally, a right that it not be withheld). That is the nature of the concept of copyright - a term for a limited time, after which the work becomes public domain. Unlike manufactured goods, the public has a right to the product (the book content).
However, the non-contract publishers' access to the book would not be "free" as you described it. My proposal that the govt dictate that a healthy percentage be paid in royalties to the author means that the percentage would be far in excess of what the author might be able to negotiate.
Your point that the publisher needs to be audited is no different than today. If the author thinks he is being cheated, he can sue. That happens in music fairly regularly. Patti Page and others are currently suing Universal for royalties.
I can't speak about photographers. I don't know anything about them. I don't think that the rules of copyright regarding books should be dictated by the circumstances of photographers.
I am referring to books. And I don't see why magazines should be treated any differently than books are.
By the way, should a publisher print a book without permission under my plan, if that edition is a success, the author could then negotiate an exclusive book deal with someone. That would require the non-contract publisher to stop publishing the book.