Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
It's been said before by others in this thread, but I'm going to say it again and hope that it sinks in this time.
NOT EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF A SHORTENED COPYRIGHT IS LOOKING FOR FREE BOOKS
I'm in favor of shortened copyrights because there are a number of books that I would like to have in e-format that aren't available because of copyright, and some that aren't available to buy new at all from anywhere. (before someone says that my preferences don't matter, I "prefer" e format because it's almost impossible for me to read a paper book anymore)
Some of the books I'm talking about are still available in print, and some aren't. With some of the books, the authors don't want to put in e-format, and in that case, I have no argument--the work DOES and SHOULD belong to the author. In some it's because of publishing houses not wanting to go to the expense or hassle of re-printing or publishing backlist books electronically. In that case, copyright should be forfeit. If the publisher is the copyright holder, and they refuse to publish, the rights should revert to the author. If the author isn't alive, then the rights default to the author's heirs. If the heirs refuse to re-publish a work, the work goes into the public domain (after all, the argument is that the heirs should get the monetary benefit, right?)
Shari
|
I do not think everyone who wants copyright shortened wants free books. I also have nothing against people wanting free books. I get a lot of free books myself from the library and I don't cower in guilt.
A lot of 'Golden Age ' Science fiction is not being published, and I think that you are reasonable in your desire to see books not being published within a certain time frame entering the public domain. In a sense they are abandon-ware.
I just do not see how lowering the copyright term is applicable. Should all rights holders be deprived of reasonable benefits because some rights holders aren't doing as we would wish? Doesn't seem fair to me.
I read the 'Golden Age' Science fiction in the 50's and 60's and up until the 80's. Believe you me, it wasn't all that accessible then. Not like every bookstore had a Science fiction section even. High school libraries had a better selection than the regular libraries and that wasn't very grandiose. Your best bet was tearing out a card in the back of a book you had and ordering it via mail. Try doing that when you are twelve years old and lucky to afford a stamp. No online ordering, no credit or ATM cards, no PayPal.
You went to the post office with your order card clenched in your hand and the money to pay the postage etc. The postal clerk regards you over the rim of his glasses and says "Do your parents know you are spending money on this garbage".
Sorry for the digression.
If Fritz Leiber's books or Samuel R. Delaney's went into the public domain
today would you reap big benefits? Maybe you would or maybe a whole lot of people would be selling ugly copies. Lotta that going around even with newer books one hears. And of course in most cases you can borrow or buy the paper copies for a buck or so.
I don't advocate any particular copyright length although I think anything less than the life of the creator is kind of a throwback to plantation owning ancestors. Personally, I don't care if it is perpetual. I buy a book or I borrow a book. Doesn't affect me as I am not going into the publishing business. And shorter copyright or no copyright would not likely mean I would run out of books to read. I'd be more annoyed, if I was in your position, by downloading a scanned piece of crap and paying money for it. I'd actually prefer to read paper to that.
Helen