Which classics fall out of copyright in 2012?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So substitute a building that provides rental income for the farm --- then the owner only profits when he allows people to use it.

And you could, of course, rent out the whole farm.

That would be the same as an author renting out his writing tools... The farm is NOT the product a farmer makes his money with! It's the tool he needs to make produce which can then be sold.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

That would be the same as an author renting out his writing tools... The farm is NOT the product a farmer makes his money with! It's the tool he needs to make produce which can then be sold.

Well, you can find minor differences with any example. You could also argue that copyright is the tool that allows you to create additional legal copies of the book.

Anyway, the rental building still works -- the building is what makes the money. And we can argue about minute differences (and whether they are important or not) for days. Tubemonkey's point was that you can pass on "profit creating" property to your offspring for an unlimited time --- why not IP? We know that a lot of people here won't agree with this premise, but he does make a point.

Not that I want to speak up in favor of unlimited copyright terms myself, but a case can be made. Rather looking forward to some free Hemingway, next year. But will the world be a better place because you can legally get his books for free? I don't think so.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, you can find minor differences with any example. You could also argue that copyright is the tool that allows you to create additional legal copies of the book.

Anyway, the rental building still works -- the building is what makes the money. And we can argue about minute differences (and whether they are important or not) for days. Tubemonkey's point was that you can pass on "profit creating" property to your offspring for an unlimited time --- why not IP? We know that a lot of people here won't agree with this premise, but he does make a point.

Not that I want to speak up in favor of unlimited copyright terms myself, but a case can be made. Rather looking forward to some free Hemingway, next year. But will the world be a better place because you can legally get his books for free? I don't think so.

And I simply don't agree that you can compare any physical property rented out to a book rented out.

Ok, you can design and build a house. And rent it out and gain money from it.
Compare to designing and writing a book. But that's where the story ends for the author. He needs to make some advertising for his book (the same as that home owner who wants to rent out his house). But the home owner (and his heirs) will have to keep working on that home. Actually, 70 years after the original creator has died, I think the house will have had received countless of updates, fixes and maybe even extensions. You try to build a house, rent it out and leave the tenants all the work.

So, I'm fine with an author (and his heirs) "renting" out their book. But I demand updates as well. The paper will get yellow: hey, new paper please! The cover gets broken: new cover? The language will get outdated: please update it with the newest spelling rules! (I find reading Dutch books of 70 years old a pain to read, as there have been some major spelling changes before I was born...). But also: the format doesn't work on my reader anymore, can I please get one that does?

[sonofpendragon]

There are too many posts to trawl through, so apols if this is already mentioned. The first 1908 edition of what has been at times, the third best selling book of all time, is also out of copyright on January 1 2012, or this Sunday. This is due to the fact that 70 years and more will have then passed since the author of the book - Lord Baden-Powell passed away.

However, for those wishing to put together reprints / facsimiles etc, do note the following, (not doing so will see you in an awkward position) :

It is very very hard to get hold of an original 1908 edition, not impossible mind, but hard, and costly. If you can get it, either the single paperback or hard cover editions, or the complete set of magazine serials which went on to be combined in the foresaid book will do, but whatever you do, do not use the text of the more recent re-releases / reprints / facsimiles of the 1908 edition, as the basis for your reprint. This is because, and you cannot blame them (assuming they were licensed by the Baden-Powell estate, I suspect some were not) for protecting their own copyrights; the texts and order of pages have been changed in minor but important ways. The only way to spot the changes is to have the original, and of course if you have the original, then to make such comparisons would be redundant, such frustratingly circular I know. If you did use these, you would be infringing their copyrights of their newer editions. So - you do need the original, but - if you have ... bingo (maybe).

There's no guarantees of success with any book, never. But if you do have the original, then you have three days to be at least up with the game or perhaps ahead of it, by scanning the pages, perhaps use OCR here and there, format the files, convert to html or Mobi etc, and get the thing on Kindle. I have to miss the boat on this one, but it will be interesting to see if at least one does pop up, and I suspect, knowing Amazon's zealousness over not allowing multiple editions of the classics on Kindle, that that's all there will be. But anyone who does try this and gets beaten to it, no worries, there are more and more platforms opening up, maybe not as big as Kindle, but big enough, and those that I have seen do not have such limitations.

Best of luck - to someone.

SofP

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's the way it's trending; and that's one way to get there. Rather ugly; but hey, I'll take it.

So people will not be allowed to experience ANY art unless they can afford it. How sad.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

And I simply don't agree that you can compare any physical property rented out to a book rented out.

Any comparisons between physical property and intellectual property are generally nonsense.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I understand where they're coming from; I just don't don't agree with it.

I personally see no difference between intellectual property and tangible property. If an author has to give up his rights 70 years after death, then so should a farmer. If society benefits from a book entering public domain, then society will also benefit when a farm enters public domain.

Here's a clear distiction between the two.

Can you make a copy of a farm? A copy of the same land, the same improvements? How about 10,000 copies? I'm not talking about taking another piece of land and making it a farm, I mean a copy, that no part of it ever existed before.

Of course not. Can't be done.

But you can make an infinite number of copies of a piece of "Intellectual Property".

This is an inherent difference. Because of this difference, a different legal structure needs to be in place for each kind of property, acknowedging the unique characteristics of each type. And because of those differences, the rules are not going to be the same, due to those very same differences.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Here's a clear distiction between the two.

Can you make a copy of a farm? A copy of the same land, the same improvements? How about 10,000 copies? I'm not talking about taking another piece of land and making it a farm, I mean a copy, that no part of it ever existed before.

Of course not. Can't be done.

But you can make an infinite number of copies of a piece of "Intellectual Property".

This is an inherent difference. Because of this difference, a different legal structure needs to be in place for each kind of property, acknowedging the unique characteristics of each type. And because of those differences, the rules are not going to be the same, due to those very same differences.

Coming from a family of farmers, Well Said.
Apache

[AprilHare]

If I understand Australian law correctly, no books will fall out of copyright for many years to come.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So people will not be allowed to experience ANY art unless they can afford it. How sad.

How do they experience it now?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Any comparisons between physical property and intellectual property are generally nonsense.

Now we are entering the realm of religious dogma. Details of any comparison (no matter what) can always be picked apart and the items can be shown to be different in some aspect. It is up to each one of us to decide if those differences matter or not.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So people will not be allowed to experience ANY art unless they can afford it. How sad.

What are museums and libraries for?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is an inherent difference. Because of this difference, a different legal structure needs to be in place for each kind of property, acknowedging the unique characteristics of each type. And because of those differences, the rules are not going to be the same, due to those very same differences.

That's because a bunch of people made these distinctions and created laws based on them. They could just as easily ignore these differences and nullify these laws. There's nothing sacrosanct about any of this.

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to pass on property of any kind to their heirs for an indefinite period of time. It's their property and I'm tired of society fabricating rationalizations so they can justify its theft.

These laws are antiquated and need changing; but I don't see it happening. At least the same system that created these unjust laws has the decency to keep extending copyright. So there is a silver lining in this cloud.

[Sweetpea]

To go back to comparing a farmer to a writer....

First, I don't buy the comparison of a farm to a book. They're both completely different things. I do buy the comparison a new plant-type to a book.

If you design a new plant-type, you can make it your intellectual property.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Plant breeders' rights (PBR), also known as plant variety rights (PVR), are rights granted to the breeder of a new variety of plant that give him exclusive control over the propagating material (including seed, cuttings, divisions, tissue culture) and harvested material (cut flowers, fruit, foliage) of a new variety for a number of years.

With these rights, the breeder can choose to become the exclusive marketer of the variety, or to license the variety to others.

Hey, that sounds familiar, right? As that goes for books as well.

But:

Typically, plant variety rights are granted by national offices, after examination. Seed is submitted to the plant variety office, who grow it for one or more seasons, to check that it is distinct, stable, and uniform. If these tests are passed, exclusive rights are granted for a period of 20 years (or 25 years, for trees and vines). Annual renewal fees are required to maintain the rights.

Wait, only 20 or 25 years? And annual renewal required? So, what's so different between books and plants that a book will allow a writer to hand on the rights for 50, 70 or however long it is in the US, to his heirs?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Wait, only 20 or 25 years? And annual renewal required? So, what's so different between books and plants that a book will allow a writer to hand on the rights for 50, 70 or however long it is in the US, to his heirs?

Laws that say so. That's the difference.