Quote:
Originally Posted by FizzyWater
I still prefer the old method of copyright, where the author had the choice to renew it every so often. If there's a book they really don't want put in the public domain in their own lifetime, they could then keep it under copyright protection.
|
Thesaidon is making a moral/ethical point, not a legal one. Just about everywhere an author holds the copyright during their life plus at least an additional 50 years, without the need for renewal. Of course, many such authors have no right to make their books unavailable, because they have given up this right to a publisher in their traditional publishing contracts. The conventional wisdom is that those who have not can of course choose not to publish further copies. However, once published, the book will end up in the public domain eventually. I would actually like to see a US court determine the question as to whether an author can in fact withdraw a book from publication considering such a withdrawal reduces the books available, directly the opposite to what the US constitution seeks to achieve. Copyright law exists to make more books available. In any event, is it an ethical act to withdraw a book from publication having once taken advantage of the copyright system?
Too many people seem to view the primary overriding purpose of copyright as being to make copyrights property and confer rights on authors accordingly. This is not the case, particularly not in the US.