Electronic versions of out-of-print paperbacks

[K-Thom]

I don't see how doing so is any more unethical than what Google is doing.

That's not the question. But Google can afford a division of lawyers. Gannett, I think, can't. So it would be suicidal to actually give this idea a try.

If you really want to start a business, offer your service to publishers whose product line you like. Or who already at least released some of the old stuff you'd like to read. If they are interested then ask them if it would be okay to use one of their titles for a sample.
Use this first customer as a reference for other publishers you'd like to address. Build up a reputation, make contacts. Maybe someone knows someone who still holds the rights to some of your faves. Then address this one.
Or try to get these publishers/customers interested in some of the old titles. Let them do the prints, you do the eBook.

But scanning and formatting work without consent of the rights holders definitely won't do you good.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

If you really want to start a business, offer your service to publishers whose product line you like...

Thom, as discussed above, I think you are assuming that the publisher of the paper book has the rights to the eBook. I assume that it does not. Its permission is irrelevant to the 1950s books under discussion.

PS - By the way, I am limiting my consideration to the US. In the 1950s and '60s, the copyright term was for 28 years, which could be renewed once for another 28 years. Gannett should not assume that every book published in the '50s and '60s had its copyright term renewed and is therefore still under copyright.

PPS - Thom, if I have misinterpreted your post, I apologize.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Yes. But I've made my living in business, so I don't usually present myself as a legal authority.

And I'm saying that he won't face criminal charges.

*****

Remember folks, my first suggestion was that he attempt to locate the copyright holders. This idea of going forward without consent was contingent upon being unable to find them.

I don't see how doing so is any more unethical than what Google is doing.

I of course agree that royalties should be agreed upon and paid. It seems to me that the real life issue is what to do about orphan works. I don't feel that it is unethical to make them available to the public, while keeping royalties in reserve should a copyright holder appear.

You claim to be a lawyer yet you advocate breaking the law. It keeps getting better and better.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You claim to be a lawyer yet you advocate breaking the law. It keeps getting better and better.

LF, you grew up in the civil rights era. Are you unaware that attorneys have advocated breaking the law?

Article 8, Section 8 of the Constitution implies (when it states that copyrights shall be for a limited time only) that there exists a public policy that written works should enter the public domain. I have been consistent in urging Gannett to negotiate with known rights holders.

The problem with orphan works is that there are no known rights holders. This suggests to me that it would be consistent with public policy to make the books again available to the public, while keeping in reserve royalty payments for unknown rights holders who may appear in the future.

[Gannett]

Ahem, seem to have stirred up something of a hornets' nest here!

I think there's merit to what everyone is saying. I can see that GA Russell was merely putting forward a hypothetical suggestion, and unfortunately, it seems to me, some posters have taken it at face value.

Personally, I have decided to scan and format some of my books for my own use.

As the the John Creaseys in particular, a small publisher reissued a handful of his books about 5 years ago, and I think I might contact them to see if they would be interested in me preparing electronic texts for publication, as they probably have had negotiations with the rights holders for John Creasey's works. As I say, his stories are excellent, and I'm sure there is a market for them, albeit a small one.

I'm glad I've been able to stimulate a lively discussion!

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

LF, you grew up in the civil rights era. Are you unaware that attorneys have advocated breaking the law?...

I swear, I haven't laughed so hard in any one thread.

There is a difference between civil disobedience as a technique to intoduce cases into court to test laws. It's another to just break laws for one's convenience or personal gain.

[Fbone]

I wonder how much a copyright attorney or similar company would charge to do a "title search."

[Xanthe]

Scan a sample book or two from each author, encode them and put them up on the file sharing sites.

If the heirs and publishers can't be bothered to get their heads together to keep the books in print, the copyright law is merely a joke and isn't protecting anyone.

You're not taking any income away from anyone since the books aren't available, and by putting them once again before the public you might actually generate more interest in them and help bring them back into print.

~ducking head away from the brickbats that are sure to be thrown at her~

[MR. Pockets]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Article 8, Section 8 of the Constitution implies (when it states that copyrights shall be for a limited time only) that there exists a public policy that written works should enter the public domain. I have been consistent in urging Gannett to negotiate with known rights holders.

Finally, someone who still cares about the Constitution!!

BTW, what is the "standard" method of determining if a book is still under copyright?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'll be the first to admit current copyright law has corrupted the original intent of our Constitution and this has been fueled by the greed of current copyright owners. For a better understanding of how this has happened, this article states it very well.

However, choosing not to obey a law or to deliberately disobey it because one does not agree with it or feel it is inconvenient to obey it is essentially anarchy. As I mentioned before, civil disobediance is a tool, albeit a bit questionable, that can be used to force a law to be tested by by the judicial system to determine it's constitutionality or fairness. Another, less risky tool (since it doesn't risk possible conviction) is challenging a law in the courts via lawsuit.

While there are copyright owners who have abandoned the works they have the rights to and current copyright law does strangle access to those rights contrary to the original intent of the US constitution, that does not excuse deliberate violation of the laws, no matter how wrong they are, just to satisfy one's own desires.

GA Russell did initially suggest trying to track down the copyright owners but then he turned around and suggested ignoring current law (which, no matter how wrong one may feel it is, is still the law) by going ahead and publishing "orphaned" works and wait to see if the owners of the rights to those works protest or not. Then, when challenged on that advice, started rationalizing his advice. That was what I found so amusing because they were the same, old, tired arguments I have seen so many times, especially since Russell claims to be a lawyer and didn't bother to explain the risks of following his advice (I'm still chortling over the "cost of doing business" line; I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that concept abused).

I'm not even going to argue with Xanth's post (mostly because I doubt it will do any good). Again, it's the same, old, tired rationalization I have seen so often to justify lawbreaking. Current copyright law may be a joke (and I personally believe it goes beyond being a mere joke) but lawbreaking is still lawbreaking, especially when done to meet one's selfish ends.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Since the OP would have violated copyright law, he may face criminal action as well as civil action.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

LF, you're not a lawyer are you? Copyright is not a criminal matter.

I don't know all the intricacies of copyright law, especially in the US, but I do know that here in the UK copyright infringement can be a criminal matter, at least in some cases. A quick google found this, which would appear to say that in the US copyright can real to criminal charges in at least some cases:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

[GhostHawk]

Well I'm all in favor of a little anarchy, but then I'm an ex pirate, so I suspect my views are, well, suspect.

Actually LF Russell did not claim to be a lawyer that I saw. Somehow LF I believe you misread his post.

"Yes. But I've made my living in business, so I don't usually present myself as a legal authority."

This country has turned so much into a police state that a bit of anarchy might remind people that our constitution has been effectively voided.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

Actually LF Russell did not claim to be a lawyer that I saw. Somehow LF I believe you misread his post.

"Yes. But I've made my living in business, so I don't usually present myself as a legal authority."

The way I read it, the "Yes" was in reply to the question "are you a lawyer?". I took the response to mean that GA Russell is a lawyer, but either practised business law, or didn't work as a lawyer.

Personally, I think the current copyright law in the UK is a mess, and from what I can tell, the US isn't much better. But regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about the law, breaking it and potentially facing criminal charges is a serious matter. If people want to do so, that's up to them, but it's better if they do so in full knowledge of what the consequences may be.

[GA Russell]

Bill, I practiced law for a number of years, but I have been in business for so long that I do not hold myself out as a legal authority on anything other than simple law school concepts and my own experience.

Many people feel that there are too many lawyers. I feel that there are not enough! I think that everyone should go to law school. The law is the rules we are expected to live by, and I think that everyone should know the rules.

In this instance, an heir would not first sue Gannett. His lawyer would write Gannett a letter. Gannett would respond with enthusiasm that he is happy that an heir has been located, and that he would be happy to negotiate a fair agreement.

It has been my experience that people are happy to come to an agreement which provides them with money they would not otherwise receive, and the attorney would be happy looking like a knight in shining armor to his client as well as receiving his fee, which would not be much for writing a letter and doing a little negotiating.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

...In this instance, an heir would not first sue Gannett. His lawyer would write Gannett a letter. Gannett would respond with enthusiasm that he is happy that an heir has been located, and that he would be happy to negotiate a fair agreement.

It has been my experience that people are happy to come to an agreement which provides them with money they would not otherwise receive, and the attorney would be happy looking like a knight in shining armor to his client as well as receiving his fee, which would not be much for writing a letter and doing a little negotiating.

You are such a stitch! What fantasy world have you been living in?