[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Who should control the copyrights for them, and make the money for those sales?

This is a very good question. From a practical perspective I think if the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, then it should probably stay that way. It is just not realistic to try to recopyright out of copyright works.

This of course does not create a level playing field, so to speak. It does however limit the escalation of free material which I believe will result in the end of writing fiction as a profession.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why should new authors *not* have to compete with the entire public domain? After all, they have always lived in a world where those works are widely, cheaply available, and for the last several decades, thousands of those works have been free from Project Gutenberg.

Physical copies of out of copyright books still cost money. In fact, their cost is not appreciably less than that of other fiction. Such competition was still somewhat fair. However, in the digital age, these works are free. It is very hard to make a living by selling books for nothing.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Do you think that forcing Austen back into copyright, assigning an heir to get profit from her books' sales, and assuming that greed will make the price of those books rise, will help new authors? That people will therefore decide to buy New Author's work instead of Austen's, since they're now all the same price?

This is of course a hypothetical, as I am not proposing recopywriting her works. This being said, I believe that such action would result in some people choosing to purchase a new book instead of purchasing one by Austen.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(Also: does your notion of removing works from the public domain apply to all copyrighted materials, or just books? Are photographs, movies, and songs all to be assigned to someone for perpetual copyright protection to "make a level playing field" for new artists? Should new composers and lyricists not have to complete with free versions of Greensleeves and Deck the Halls?)

I do not think that removing works from the public domain is practical. This being said, my position applies to other fields as well, such as music, and motion pictures.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What do you mean, "less than it costs to produce them?" Books are *always* sold for less than the cost of production... if "time the author spent writing them" is part of the equation.

If it takes six months to write a book, the ebook certainly isn't selling for "half a year's rent, utilities, food, and other expenses" per copy. Each book is priced low in order to make those costs up by selling many copies.

If a book takes six months to produce, what do you think the minimum cost for the ebook should be? Should fast writers charge less per book than slower ones?

You are correct in questioning my statement, as it is incorrect. I think that it is important that authors are able to earn a living from writing. Thus, if an author spends six months writing a book, and then distributes it for free he cannot possibly recoup his expenses. It is important that books be priced so that the author can recoup his expenses based on expected sales.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't get this. What's being subsidized? Who is getting money from an outside source?

Maybe my use of the term subsidy is non-standard. An author who spends his time writing, spends no time earning a living, and charges no money for his books, is effectively subsidising his writings. My concern here is that such authors have the potential to drive all other authors out of the marketplace.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Authors with a day job are welcome to distribute books for free, but retired or disabled authors have to charge $5 a copy? I don't follow your logic at all.

I would not condone any authors distributing books for free. It took time and effort to write the book and they should be compensated for their work.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Porn is pretty much generic. Most men do not particularly care if it's Busty Girl A or Busty Girl B who is exerting herself, yet few people who want to read Jane Austen would be happy to be handed Chaucer instead.

I think that if you saw the John Edwards video you would beg to differ. Like most books, the hero 'wins' in the end, it is how the story is told and the cast of characters that determine its quality.

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Now I'm really confused about what the argument is about. Of course, if I read Author A I'm not reading Author B. I don't make my decisions on which author to read based on who is public domain, I make it on who I feel in the mood to read at that moment.

Some people are also influenced by price. Especially if they can find something similar that is a lower price.

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Is the argument that there shouldn't be public domain books because then people read for free (or cheap) rather than reading modern authors who are more expensive?

This is certainly the danger. Thus I propose to maintain copyright on all books that are currently copyrighted.

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Yes, the more long-tail books there are available, the more competition any give book has for my attention. Does that mean that old books should be made unavailable just so I'll be forced into reading something more current?

No, this is rather draconian.