How Copyright Makes Books and Music Disappear

[SteveEisenberg]

It common to see a copyright notice such as:

Copyright © 2009 by William Shawcross

And this example is available as an eBook:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Queen-Moth.../dp/1400078342

Suppose, I hope far in the future, Mr. Shawcross dies, dividing his estate between a number of children. Then some of them die, dividing the estate between their children. In most cases, the wills are uncontested, but one or two are in dispute.

Publisher? Well, it's Random House, and they will be here for a while.

Given this situation, I have a few questions:

-- What does the publisher, or successor firm, do if they can't reliably identify who to send the royalties to?

-- And what do they do if, before life + 70 is reached, the number of heirs becomes so high that it would cost more to issue them annual payments than the value of the royalty payments themselves?

-- At what point does it become legally challenging for Amazon, Kobo, and successor firms to keep selling the eBook?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by usuallee

Ummm, did I say that? No, I clearly did not. I merely indicated that I would not necessarily shed any tears if others felt that way about 40+ year old works, particularly if the creators are multi-billionaires and/or have been dead a half century.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?

Ahh, someone who has been dead for half a century created a 40 year old work, that I would like to read about.

Helen

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

It common to see a copyright notice such as:

Copyright © 2009 by William Shawcross

And this example is available as an eBook:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Queen-Moth.../dp/1400078342

Suppose, I hope far in the future, Mr. Shawcross dies, dividing his estate between a number of children. Then some of them die, dividing the estate between their children. In most cases, the wills are uncontested, but one or two are in dispute.

Publisher? Well, it's Random House, and they will be here for a while.

Given this situation, I have a few questions:

-- What does the publisher, or successor firm, do if they can't reliably identify who to send the royalties to?

-- And what do they do if, before life + 70 is reached, the number of heirs becomes so high that it would cost more to issue them annual payments than the value of the royalty payments themselves?

-- At what point does it become legally challenging for Amazon, Kobo, and successor firms to keep selling the eBook?

The author's will and testament should establish a literary executor to manage the deceased copyrighted works and IP. The author usually chooses the executor while he is still alive.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by usuallee

Ummm, did I say that? No, I clearly did not. I merely indicated that I would not necessarily shed any tears if others felt that way about 40+ year old works, particularly if the creators are multi-billionaires and/or have been dead a half century.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?

Did I say that you did? You definitely implied that you had some sympathy ("wavered") for those that apparently do feel that way, so I asked whether you did too.

But hey, don't let syntax get in the way of a good argument, eh?

Originally Posted by Lemurion

[...cut for brevity only...]
This is one reason why I like to tie copyright terms to the publication of the work, not the life of the author. It makes it much easier to track things down.

Some good points. I quite like the idea of copyright tied publication of the work in theory, but copyright doesn't just apply to things that have been formally published (or even dated) and that complicates this option.

Things don't have to be in the public domain to provide fertilization and inspiration, they just have to be available - which is where I was suggesting that ebooks and print-on-demand (that make it easier to keep books available) were reducing the impact of this public interest argument.

I was not trying to suggest that record keeping in the past is improving (although in many cases it is, as historical documents get digitised etc.), but record keeping in more recent times has improved and is improving. Unless a change to copyright is going to be retrospective, then it is record keeping as it now exists that will be applicable to tracing works in the future.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Ahh, someone who has been dead for half a century created a 40 year old work, that I would like to read about.

Helen

Well, Frank Herbert released a book last year and another one this year despite being Living Impaired since 1986

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have one 1/2 oz gold piece that says the attempt will be made before 2022.
I have another that says it will get slipped in successfully (in a last minute negotiation before 2023, as a rider to some other bill.)

Bet?

Originally Posted by Fluribus

I have a standard zinc penny that says it won't. He's an argumentative little fellow.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Done. A penny here, a penny there....

The mouse house is simply not going to roll over and go to sleep when their business model is at stake. They haven't in the past, they won't in the future.

Noted!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Noted!

SteveEisenberg declined the bet.

Are you accepting it? (it was not open ended to anybody, I don't make bets I can't already cover. I have plenty of zinc pennies (actually cents - but pennies is in common usage for cents in the US).

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by gmw

Did I say that you did? You definitely implied that you had some sympathy ("wavered") for those that apparently do feel that way, so I asked whether you did too.

But hey, don't let syntax get in the way of a good argument, eh?

Nice try. You didn't ask but rather assumed, in a very accusatory manner. Now you're trying to backtrack.

Your quote: "So you feel entitled to have anything older than 40(?) years for free?" What I wrote was perfectly clear, and there was nothing in what I wrote that in any way hinted that I personally feel that way. So I have no idea why you would feel the need to ask such a pejorative question. It almost seems like you were looking for any excuse to pick a fight and bully someone.

Just do me a favor and talk to me nicely and avoid putting words in my mouth and making wild unfounded assumptions. If you can manage that, gmw, you and I will be just fine.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by theArticle

Titles now in the public domain (those published prior to 1923) constitute 72% of the total (1665/2317), while titles still under copyright constitute 28%

On Amazon, this is simply a matter of people trying to make money while doing little work.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by usuallee

Nice try. You didn't ask but rather assumed, in a very accusatory manner. Now you're trying to backtrack.

Your quote: "So you feel entitled to have anything older than 40(?) years for free?" What I wrote was perfectly clear, and there was nothing in what I wrote that in any way hinted that I personally feel that way. So I have no idea why you would feel the need to ask such a pejorative question. It almost seems like you were looking for any excuse to pick a fight and bully someone.

Just do me a favor and talk to me nicely and avoid putting words in my mouth and making wild unfounded assumptions. If you can manage that, gmw, you and I will be just fine.

No, no backtracking was necessary. It was a question, you acknowledge that yourself above ("ask such a pejorative question").

The question, at the time it was asked, was not unfounded. It was in response to this:

Originally Posted by usuallee

[...]However, this excessive copyright terms nonsense is the one aspect of the debate that makes me waver, for older stuff. I guess I wouldn't feel too badly about the piracy of Beatles or The Who albums, William Faulkner novels, or old Disney movies at this point.

I still see no reason why I shouldn't accept this as a "hint" that you might feel the same way as those committing the piracy you "wouldn't feel too badly about". Why wouldn't you feel bad about it unless you personally felt there was some justification for it? Hence the question.

You have subsequently tried to explain yourself with:

Originally Posted by usuallee

Ummm, did I say that? No, I clearly did not. I merely indicated that I would not necessarily shed any tears if others felt that way about 40+ year old works, particularly if the creators are multi-billionaires and/or have been dead a half century.[...]

Which does little but provide another "hint" that you might personally feel 40 years is long enough for copyright protection. (Note that your qualification "particularly" does not completely exclude non-billionaires, it only suggests that your sympathy level may vary with the wealth and health of the victim.)

It's not actually a difficult question and I fail to see anything all that insulting in it, despite my phrasing. There are people that feel copyright should be a flat period much shorter than 40 years, and they are entitled to have that opinion. There is no particular shame in it.

Perhaps you dislike that the question jumps to the result of the products being obtained for free. Given that the examples your offered are still available, there seems little other reason for suggesting piracy in these cases would be excusable.

To correct any appearance of me putting words in your mouth you only needed to answer the question directly - which, I notice, you still haven't done.

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by gmw

No, no backtracking was necessary. It was a question, you acknowledge that yourself above ("ask such a pejorative question").

The question, at the time it was asked, was not unfounded. It was in response to this:


I still see no reason why I shouldn't accept this as a "hint" that you might feel the same way as those committing the piracy you "wouldn't feel too badly about". Why wouldn't you feel bad about it unless you personally felt there was some justification for it? Hence the question.

You have subsequently tried to explain yourself with:


Which does little but provide another "hint" that you might personally feel 40 years is long enough for copyright protection. (Note that your qualification "particularly" does not completely exclude non-billionaires, it only suggests that your sympathy level may vary with the wealth and health of the victim.)

It's not actually a difficult question and I fail to see anything all that insulting in it, despite my phrasing. There are people that feel copyright should be a flat period much shorter than 40 years, and they are entitled to have that opinion. There is no particular shame in it.

Perhaps you dislike that the question jumps to the result of the products being obtained for free. Given that the examples your offered are still available, there seems little other reason for suggesting piracy in these cases would be excusable.

To correct any appearance of me putting words in your mouth you only needed to answer the question directly - which, I notice, you still haven't done.

You're cherry picking your quotes dude. I notice you conveniently excluded the part where I said, quote: "I'm no fan of piracy, as I've said before artists and those who work with them should be paid and my concern from a consumer's viewpoint would be that rampant piracy would lead to less choice of entertainment content..." I think that pretty clearly states my view on piracy in a straitforward manner that anyone could understand. So just let it go already. If you are unsure as to what it was that I said, perhaps you should go back and review.

That said, you demanded an answer to your rather tactless and rude initial question, so in the interest of facilitating the termination of this increasingly tiresome dialogue, here you go: I do not personally have a sense of entitlement that I would feel the desire to pirate anything that is still under copyright. Because you seem so very keen to know my views, I will elaborate. My main selfish stake in this is content creation. I like to consume lots of content, so insofar as copyright encourages content creation, I'm in favor of it.

I do feel the current terms are ludicrously long. But as I am a civilized person, and not an anarchist, I obey copyright laws. I do feel artists should get paid, and I can afford what I want anyway, so I have no incentive to pirate. For example, I bought every single Beatles Remaster when they came out even though undoubtedly someone probably posted them somewhere. So Sir Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and whomever George was married to padded their coffers further. The Who I have always felt are overrated. That's just me. So I have neither purchased nor pirated any of their material. I did listen to "Baba O'Reilly" at a friend's house once. Maybe I should send Roger Daltrey a check.

If you want to know my mother's maiden name, my social security number, credit card info, etc, please by all means just ask and i would be happy to share. I'm an open book

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

SteveEisenberg declined the bet.

Are you accepting it? (it was not open ended to anybody, I don't make bets I can't already cover. I have plenty of zinc pennies (actually cents - but pennies is in common usage for cents in the US).

I thought Fluribus accepted your wager, and you accepted the odds he offered (1/2 oz gold to 1 penny). But I'll happily delete the record if I am mistaken.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I thought Fluribus accepted your wager, and you accepted the odds he offered (1/2 oz gold to 1 penny). But I'll happily delete the record if I am mistaken.

Apparently I misunderstood the bet, I assumes it was one zinc penny to one zinc penny. (Fluribus willing to bet at lower stakes). However, like a character in a Damon Runyon story, never let it be said I welshed on a bet. Perhaps Fluribus can clarify.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by gmw

Unless a change to copyright is going to be retrospective, then it is record keeping as it now exists that will be applicable to tracing works in the future.

I'm not sure that the problem is recordkeeping. It might be that it has to do with legal issues, and that these haven't changed, or at least haven't gotten less common.

I don't have an internet age example of an eBook becoming unavailable, but I do have one for music. Everything here was once available at record stores throughout the US, and, for all I know, the world:

http://www.showmusic.com/showmusic/P.../pscds.htm#TOP

Ben Bagley, the leading personality and apparent owner of Painted Smiles Records, died in 1998. His star-studded, often rave-reviewed, product line is (despite my misleading link) now unavailable, except, sometimes, for used LP's and CD's. No iTunes, no Spotify, no Amazon MP3.

Why? I don't really know. But I can't believe demand is zero.*

I wonder what would have happened if Bagley had lived a few years longer, and made an agreement for his line to go on iTunes. Then, one day, perhaps shortly after Bagley died, Apple would presumably have gotten a royalty check returned as undeliverable. Would they have pulled the products, or still sell them?

____________
* Someone may check and see that iTunes does sell one Bagley recording, apparently because it is distributed by a still-existing record company.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well, Frank Herbert released a book last year and another one this year despite being Living Impaired since 1986

Yes I understand that this is possible if just a tiny bit strange, but did he create it last year, and if so is there a viseo?

Helen