Copyright Reform Poll

[Richwood]

For fiction I think that 20 years w/o renewal is the way to go unless an item is kept continuously in print or available in electronic form. If popular enough to still be in print after 20 years then allow a single 20 year renewal. What percentage of fiction books or short stories remain in print for any where near that long? 1% or so maybe? The original version of "Lord Of The Rings" lost USA copyright due to not being published here and having too many British copies imported per copyright law at the time.

I remember as ACE Books printed an unauthorized version here circa 1967 or so. The first version I bought and read. The author revised things enough to get a new USA copyright and a contract with Ballantine as I recall for the "authorized edition".

[ApK]

I strongly object to all these suggestions that have some variation of "only if it's popular" or "only if it's still making money."
They miss the point on both ends of the spectrum, the one being: why should the public domain only get stuff that's unpopular and no one's interested in any more, and the other being: Copyright includes the right to NOT let your work be published or sold or used in some ways you object to. Creators should not have to give up those rights sooner than others.
And aside from those extremes, in the middle ground, it's still unfair to deny a renewal or extension because it's not doing well in the market place. Many great works are ahead of their time, and only become gold-mine classics after many years. Don't deny creators that chance. One time period, one set of rules. Marketplace performance or presence should not be a factor.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Richwood

For fiction I think that 20 years w/o renewal is the way to go unless an item is kept continuously in print or available in electronic form. If popular enough to still be in print after 20 years then allow a single 20 year renewal. What percentage of fiction books or short stories remain in print for any where near that long? 1% or so maybe? The original version of "Lord Of The Rings" lost USA copyright due to not being published here and having too many British copies imported per copyright law at the time.

I remember as ACE Books printed an unauthorized version here circa 1967 or so. The first version I bought and read. The author revised things enough to get a new USA copyright and a contract with Ballantine as I recall for the "authorized edition".

That wasn't exactly the case with LOTR. Tolkien didn't need to revise anything to get a US copyright, he simply had to print the books in the US. The original US version was actually printed in the UK and then bound in the US. Once he did that, he had the copyright. The Ballentine version did have an updated intro and revisions, but then again, each of the new edition of Lord of the Rings had revisions. Whither or not Ace's claim that their edition didn't violate copyright law never was decided in the courts. Ace reached a settlement with Tolkien, paid him money and withdrew their edition from the market after getting a lot of bad press.

[Uncle Robin]

I found the list of poll options very helpful. I was VERY tempted to go with "The Blue one next to the Fish", but in the end decided on "the lifetime of the author". Authors deserve to have both compensation and control over their creations, but once they've shuffled off, they have no need of either.

[doubleshuffle]

When we have the result of the poll -- can we then have a video conference to debate and decide on the future of copyright once and for all?

[pdurrant]

Once the poll's finished, I thought we'd continue the discussion here for a week or two, and then have another poll to see if anyone's changed their mind!

[doubleshuffle]

That's a great idea. I for one may have changed my mind already.

[Uncle Robin]

I hadn't read the thread, I only saw the poll tonight and voted, so went back over all the comments. I'm genuinely surprised that, unless I missed some, my vote for "life" represents exactly 50% of that option's total.(walks off, humming Eminem)

[4691mls]

I voted for a fixed term. As a few other people already said, it's just simpler. All anyone has to know is when the book was first published - no trying to find out if the author is still a live or when/if a renewal was obtained. I'm not sure how many years that fixed term should be.

[pdurrant]

More people vote than comment.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

More people vote than comment.

By an order of magnitude (or nearly so) in at least one instance, it would seem

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Authors deserve to have both compensation and control over their creations, but once they've shuffled off, they have no need of either.

I probably would have thought the same way before I had a family to provide for, and before I saw how important it was to my mom to provide for her family. If I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I wouldn't want the public seizing control of my intellectual property rights sooner than I'd have been entitled to anymore than I'd want them seizing the rest of my estate from my heirs (same logic, I'd 'have no need' of any of it anymore, right?) A fixed time period serves living authors, estates, and corporate ownership equally. Gee...so far this thread is making me MORE set in my opinion!

[pdurrant]

I'm still biting my tongue, and wishing I'd put a shorter time limit on the poll. I'll join in the discussion in May.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm still biting my tongue, and wishing I'd put a shorter time limit on the poll. I'll join in the discussion in May.

I see one 4-page-long multi-quoted manifesto in our future.
(Like Hawkeye in that episode of MASH after he bet he wouldn't crack any jokes for a week.)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ApK

I see one 4-page-long multi-quoted manifesto in our future.

Not at all. One paragraph of stunning clarity, and I'll convert everyone to my opinion.