Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Not nearly as many.. and often the author of such works might receive nothing from the printer of such works (especially the more popular works).
|
There are more literate people today and the costs of printing and distribution were higher. In Romania most authors don't get paid from the sale of their printed books because the costs are high and there isn't enough profit to go around to the authors. The authors agree to this, and it is all legal under copyright law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
You are making an unjustified (imho) logical leap there. Prior to ebooks (which obviously changes the game), it would have been impractical to say the least for the author to self publish. Even if we maintained the original copyright laws of the United States (14 years renewable (by the author or his heirs) once for 14 years), I sincerely doubt it would have had any beneficial outcome for the vast majority of authors. I believe many author contracts include clauses where rights revert after a work has been out of print for a given period of time.
No it doesn't. A book that is out of print is out of print because it is no longer competitive in the market place. Lets look at it this way, of all the novels published in the 1970s, the vast majority are now out of print and have effectively zero commercial value (Perhaps not even worth the effort of converting them to ebooks). The fact that they might remain under copyright for another 100 years (i.e., their author might live another 30 years) has zero impact on their value. Those novels do not compete with the latest novels being published in any practical form.
|
The publishers control the printers and the distribution channels and it is because of them that it was impractical for authors to self publish. But if there is indeed no commercial value a certain number of years after a book is first published what is the reasoning behind extending the copyright that far? If nobody wants to make copies why would the right to make copies be legally restricted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
This despite the fact it was only ever created to be what is best for the public?
|
The reasoning behind copyright law is that if it benefits the authors they will create more works and that benefits the public. I'm arguing that the current copyright terms don't benefit the authors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
Keeping authors writing by allowing them a slim chance to make money is IMO best for the public. Most here would disagree it seems although not all by any means.
I have more books available to read than I could finish that I actively want to read so changing copyright law would not impact me a whole lot. But I still would like authors to make money even if they can't make chairs.
No one other than the authors is going to be hurt big time if all of the good/great fiction authors stop writing.
Non fiction is a different story. Less information will be shared and I don't think that is good for society or me either. Students might benefit short term, and I am pretty sure there won't be a shortage of cookbooks or crafting books, but a lot of scientific or political or sociology books etc. would not be written. We will be dependant on television news and newspapers for our knowledge of the world around us, or blogs or twitter.
Perhaps we will be ok as people can't seem to get enough blogging or twittering and some of them might actually say something enlightening.
|
There is no reason to believe that authors would stop writing. We have history as proof that that wouldn't happen as author's who's writings (both fiction and non-fiction) were deemed against a political regime were stopped from being able to get financial gain from their work and even if they were threatened with imprisonment and death they still did their best to get their ideas across. Not all of them, but it is clear that even it it would be illegal to make money out of writing we would still have new works.
I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal to make money out of writing, it's just that I find it preposterous to suggest that regardless of the direction that laws take people would stop writing.