Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
The question is -- why is it a bad decision?
First, the law.
Under terms of US Copyright law in place when Lee first published, I believe the copyright was set to expire on July 11, 2016 (two 28 year terms). Since then, the US Congress increased it to the end of the 95th calendar year, which will be January 1, 2056. This is well before the copyright expiration date in Life + 70 Germany*, that being January 1, 2087, and Canada**, where it expires on January 1, 2067 unless the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified, in which case it goes to January 1, 2087.
You seem to be suggesting that the family has some responsibility to leave money on the table. I don't see it.
The title is widely available for free in libraries. I'll bet that even third world village reading rooms commonly include this title in their tiny collections. As for the cost to US school districts, the United States is still a rich country with, by world standards, a heavily funded government. Why should the family sell books, at a sub-market price, when they mostly are bought by US governmental entities?
From a standpoint of encouraging creation of works of art, it was a questionable decision to make copyright terms longer for books already published. Whose fault is that? Note that if the family publishes the book at below-market prices, they will have less to give to legitimate charities. Why shouldn't they give the money to charities they select rather than haphazardly to US school districts rich and (by US standards) poor?
The family may be doing this based on advice from HarperCollins, whose financial interests are likely similar.
Is that so bad? HarperCollins splits revenue between multiple purposes, including buying book proposals for titles I want to read. I can't see funding new titles being less moral than selling old ones for lower prices than today's changing market will bear.
_____________________
* No rule of the shorter term because of 1892 treaty with United States.
** No rule of the shorter term due to 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. |
I think that the real point is that copyright, as it is in the US Constitution, makes it clear that copyright is a deal between artists and the general public, giving artists a limited duration copyright in return for the benefit to the general public. The current law makes a mockery of the term limited duration. This is a point that has been debated many times here. I suspect that most would be much more generous towards artists and their heirs if the field hadn't been tilted so heavily in their direction.