What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

That web page has been a blind alley since Painted Smiles records went out of business.

Bummer

Still, a recording unavailable via digital and CD is very rare these days, and the amount of music available digitally has exploded. It won't happen overnight, but if ebooks continue to grow in popularity then there's no doubt that more material will be available.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is still America lobbyists that are guilty. They pressured Europe to change the laws to be able to use that as an argument to get the US to change the law.

Is this a joke?

I assure you, it's much easier for US lobbyists to persuade US politicians to change a law, than for US lobbyists to persuade multiple European governments in an attempt to set an example for US lawmakers.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Is this a joke?

I assure you, it's much easier for US lobbyists to persuade US politicians to change a law, than for US lobbyists to persuade multiple European governments in an attempt to set an example for US lawmakers.

I do not remember the details but check up the details. The lobbyists persuaded US politicians that pressured EU. Going this route was easier to get the wanted change in the US.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Is this a joke?

I assure you, it's much easier for US lobbyists to persuade US politicians to change a law, than for US lobbyists to persuade multiple European governments in an attempt to set an example for US lawmakers.

The US has the best lobbyists in the world! They must have cleverly told European governments that they should reduce the copyright term to 30 years because it would help US companies...at which point the governments all stampeded to raise the term to 70 years.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not remember the details but check up the details.

I tried to find a source for this but I cannot find it. I am pretty sure I read about this in a source that I trusted. Maybe it was a paper book and I therefore cannot find it now.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It won't happen overnight, but if ebooks continue to grow in popularity then there's no doubt that more material will be available.

A great many more will be available from among in-print copyrighted works created in the computerized typesetting era. But books written in the 1930's through 1960's? Not so much, until such time, if ever, when they go under public domain.

I think you underestimate the legal costs of figuring out who owns the copyright in books long our of print. The cost of legal research, plus negotiating royalties, plus paying for proofreaders makes for bigger barriers than I think you acknowledge in the case of the long dead author. Living authors need royalties, or they can't afford to write. Deceased authors need public domain, or society can't afford to make their works available to the public.

I'd like to read about an author who had writers block when copyright ended fifty years after death, but was motivated to overcome it when they added the extra twenty years.

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

A great many more will be available from among in-print copyrighted works created in the computerized typesetting era. But books written in the 1930's through 1960's? Not so much, until such time, if ever, when they go under public domain.

I think you underestimate the legal costs of figuring out who owns the copyright in books long our of print. The cost of legal research, plus negotiating royalties, plus paying for proofreaders makes for bigger barriers than I think you acknowledge in the case of the long dead author. Living authors need royalties, or they can't afford to write. Deceased authors need public domain, or society can't afford to make their works available to the public.

I'd like to read about an author who had writers block when copyright ended fifty years after death, but was motivated to overcome it when they added the extra twenty years.

Which is why we need copyright periods that are shorter rather than longer. .

I'm baffled that patents are in place for 20 years and copyright is death +70.

Why are useful devices "only" protected for 20 years? Are the creative arts that much more valuable to society than devices? If patent-holders are compensated well enough after 20 years, then creative artists should have 20 years as well.

Just while the thought is occurring to me, why is software protected by both copyright law (and patents in some cases)...when the source code does not have to be published at some point?

I do understand in order for it to be fully protected it needs to be kept 'secret', but why don't they have to register it somewhere (Library of Congress or where-ever) that it can be recovered from later?

In the case of any other sort of copyright or patents, what you're doing has to be revealed and available for investigation to the public. How the hell does someone copyright (or patent) what they then claim is a trade secret?

I may be wrong about patents and maybe they do publish the source code, but I've only seen software patents shown as "a method to do <blah blah>". I know software explicitly does not have to publish source code to be copyrighted.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

In the case of any other sort of copyright or patents, what you're doing has to be revealed and available for investigation to the public. How the hell does someone copyright (or patent) what they then claim is a trade secret?

I cannot speak to patents, but there's nothing stating that anything has to be available to the public to be protected by copyright.

[majolo]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

A great many more will be available from among in-print copyrighted works created in the computerized typesetting era. But books written in the 1930's through 1960's? Not so much, until such time, if ever, when they go under public domain.

Unfortunately, I think you make the gap much too small. I have an ebook version of a book first published in 1996 whose (Big 5) publisher clearly just pushed a paper copy through OCR and didn't properly proofread.

The fact that publishers in the 90's lacked the foresight to keep digital copies of texts for an entirely foreseeable ebook future makes me very much less confident that "ebooks will never go out of print."

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

Which is why we need copyright periods that are shorter rather than longer. .

I'm baffled that patents are in place for 20 years and copyright is death +70.

Why are useful devices "only" protected for 20 years? Are the creative arts that much more valuable to society than devices? If patent-holders are compensated well enough after 20 years, then creative artists should have 20 years as well.

Just while the thought is occurring to me, why is software protected by both copyright law (and patents in some cases)...when the source code does not have to be published at some point?

I feel the same way. Patents and copyright should be similiar in this regard...and were.

14 years + 14 year renewal was fine. The 1831 and 1909 laws got us up to 28 + 28...that was probably fine too (given increasing human lifespans).

The life + a bunch of years thing is ridiculous. Maybe life or 28+ 28. Something like that. The only reason it has been extended to terms that are almost better measured in centuries is for the benefit of corporations like Disney. Not society.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I cannot speak to patents, but there's nothing stating that anything has to be available to the public to be protected by copyright.

And that's my major gripe against the current copyright laws. If they won't lower the years after death, at least they should add the clause: "or as long as it's publicly available" (and I'd like to add, in as many forms as possible). Everybody agrees that the copyright laws are to make sure that the creator will get his just reward. But, if it's not available, why copyright it as he won't get any revenue from it anyway?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by majolo

In the US, I understand copyright begins when the work is first "fixed". Am I right that this new (to the public) work is instantly PD? (Of course, commentary, introduction, etc. by U. of California Press would be under copyright.)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

And that's my major gripe against the current copyright laws. If they won't lower the years after death, at least they should add the clause: "or as long as it's publicly available" (and I'd like to add, in as many forms as possible). Everybody agrees that the copyright laws are to make sure that the creator will get his just reward. But, if it's not available, why copyright it as he won't get any revenue from it anyway?

One reason that copyright is automatic is to provide protection against something being published without the author's permission. eg, if you write a diary, you have a right that it should remain private until 70 years after your death.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One reason that copyright is automatic is to provide protection against something being published without the author's permission. eg, if you write a diary, you have a right that it should remain private until 70 years after your death.

That won't work -- in case the author of a diary passes a way the heirs decide whether to publish or not. I do not even think that forbidding to publish in a will can legally prevent publishing by the heirs. The author can decide during his live time, not after.

Thinking about this issue -- anyone who knows what happens with copyright when one goes bankrupt? Would you loose it? Do creditors have ask for transfer?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

That won't work -- in case the author of a diary passes a way the heirs decide whether to publish or not. I do not even think that forbidding to publish in a will can legally prevent publishing by the heirs. The author can decide during his live time, not after.

That's true, of course. I was responding, though, to the previous comment that copyright has no relevance if a work is not published. I must disagree with that view, for the reasons I stated. Copyright can be (and often is) used to prevent publication as well as to encourage it.