[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Christa, I have to disagree. The concept of copyright law is that when the term of copyright expires, the public is indeed entitled to the book's content! Thus it is called "public domain".

Two things. First, in the context of my statement, this does not apply. Penquin Classics have every right to charge money for and copyright their issue of any given PD book - that particular edition is not free. Once you buy it, you can extract the original (PD) content and use it to your heart's content as long as you don't copy Penquin's protected formatting, artwork or any additional content they add to it. Second, copyright laws do not state that it has to be made available on demand - if you want to utilize PD content, you're responsible for obtaining the content in a legal manner.

Thus, you are entitled to use the content, but you are not entitled to any and every copy that may exist. This is especially true with ebooks because NO issued ebook edition is inherently in PD - it's only in PD if the publisher (like Project Gutenberg) releases it such a manner. The wonderful people who lovingly format and upload files to MobileRead do so willingly - they are not obligated to do it this way simply because the source content is PD.

I daresay that moral people believe that the author should be compensated. I believe that the current model of compensation doesn't work in the digital age. I believe that an alternative must be found.

And I hope that moral people believe that everyone involved in bringing a quality book to fruition should be paid, and that is often more than just the author. Yes, we need a new model as we move away from the traditional publishing model. Self-publishers are taking on more of the expenses once taken on by the publishers, such as editing, artwork and marketing. Those things cost money, and when they aren't paid for, it is often painfully obvious. If they can't make enough money to cover those expenses, the quality of available writing will suffer.

Artists did not always receive royalties. In the Middle Ages they were sponsored by princes, I think.

Throughout time, the world of the arts shifted. In some places in the olden days, the arts were reserved for the elite - and the elite were the patrons of the arts. They bankrolled the creators. A wealthy person could make or break "their" composer or artist on a whim. Even today we have patrons that do the same, but usually it is the fans that provide the financial support because the arts are now available to we poor peasants. This can actually cause the patrons to spend more in some cases, but that's a whole 'nother phenomenon. I've seen it first hand in the local arts community, and it's kinda funny and kinda sad at the same time.

Even today, painters are paid once for the work, and if the value goes up after that, they don't get any of the price appreciation.

Painters can be paid more than once for a work - artwork such as paintings and photographs can be licensed as reproducible content just like text. That's how we get those calendars from the gas company every year. Depending on the terms of the sale, the painter may or may not hold right of reproduction after the original is sold.

I don't think we're actually in disagreement on much here, GA. But I do tend to be long-winded when I haven't had enough coffee.