Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I see nothing wrong with that. If a copyright holder wishes to bury his book forever, then that's his right.

No, it's not. The book does not belong to him. What belongs to him is the right to commercial exploitation of the book.

When the copyright owner fails to exploit his copyright, it should be regarded as abandoned property, and revert to the general public.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I disagree. I see no difference in owning the copyright to a book than owning a piece of land. If death can deliver your book into the public domain, then death should also deliver your land into the hands of the state.

The "public domain" and "the state" are not the same thing, except, I suppose, under socialism.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

As a practical matter, any novel published today will not go out of copyright until everyone who is alive today, dies. That's not "eternal," but it might as well be.

I suspect that most people don't actually have an issue with copyright extending for an author's lifetime; the question is how far after the author's death - if at all - should it extend. I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to get a book published within my lifetime for free.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

No, it's not. The book does not belong to him. What belongs to him is the right to commercial exploitation of the book.

When the copyright owner fails to exploit his copyright, it should be regarded as abandoned property, and revert to the general public.

Doesn't "the right to commercial exploitation" include the right to choose NOT to commercially exploit it? Are you suggesting, for example, that anyone who keeps a private diary should be forced to publish it?

[John Carroll]

I personally believe that legitimate companies like Amazon and Google should have an automatic script to check if a book title is already in the public domain and if it is, refuse to allow anyone to publish it in the public domain. If a small company like Smashwords can avoid publishing public domain books, the big companies should be able to as well.

Personally, I think the 50/70/however many years copyright after an artist's death is ridiculous. I think 25 years would be more than sufficient for a copyright to be valid before going into the public domain. It gives the artist's children somewhat of an inheritance, but after that, they need to make their own fortune.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Johnn Carroll

I personally believe that legitimate companies like Amazon and Google should have an automatic script to check if a book title is already in the public domain and if it is, refuse to allow anyone to publish it in the public domain.

So you think that nobody should be permitted to publish authors like, say, Dickens or Shakespeare simply because they are in the public domain?

[John Carroll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you think that nobody should be permitted to publish authors like, say, Dickens or Shakespeare simply because they are in the public domain?

Hmmm . . . good point. Orchestras can still play classical music and make money from it.

I need to think about this some more. I know that I don't think it's right that people take work from the Gutenberg project and profit off of it. But right/legal/reality are all different things, aren't they?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Johnn Carroll

I need to think about this some more. I know that I don't think it's right that people take work from the Gutenberg project and profit off of it. But right/legal/reality are all different things, aren't they?

The PG project understands what freedom means.
Putting the books in the public domain means that people can do whatever they want with their work, including making money off it. Other projects redefine free to prevent things like this.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you think that nobody should be permitted to publish authors like, say, Dickens or Shakespeare simply because they are in the public domain?

If they are not adding any value to the public domain text, then yes. E-books have brought about a fundamental change in the availability of books. If a public domain work exists as an e-book then it is universally available for practically zero cost.

Selling an unchanged e-text is like bottling up the atmosphere and selling it. Fraud, plain and simple.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Selling an unchanged e-text is like bottling up the atmosphere and selling it. Fraud, plain and simple.

You mean like this?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You mean like this?

You mean I need to spell out analogies in infantile detail for you?

[murraypaul]

Well you could stop using words like fraud, which have a legal definition, to describe things they don't relate to. If a copy of a public domain book is sold through Amazon for a nominal price for people who want the convenience of getting it that way, and having it stored in the cloud, and it is made clear what is being sold, then it isn't fraud, plain and simple.

Ditto bottling air, or indeed water, a large industry.

[kovidgoyal]

So you consider taking a public domain text, running it through an automated converter and then selling it for (potentially infinite) profit, not be fraud?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

So you consider taking a public domain text, running it through an automated converter and then selling it for (potentially infinite) profit, not be fraud?

As long as you aren't making false claims about it, then no, why should it be?
Fraud requires deception.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

As long as you aren't making false claims about it, then no, why should it be?
Fraud requires deception.

The deception is implicit, unless you state on the product page, very clearly, that this very same text is available for free, elsewhere.