Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Really? That system worked fine in the United States for something like 150 years.

It hasn't actually worked that well. There's an interesting article here from Techdirt that describes the problem in more detail. You're minimizing how difficult it actually is to check the status of copyright on works; the problem is that the records themselves haven't been scanned and aren't searchable. So the result is that no one is bothering, and the works are effectively being lost.

Here's an on-point quote from the article:

The fact is, the majority of 1923-63 books are indeed in the public domain because they weren't renewed, but there's only one way to know this for sure: checking the records held by the Copyright Office. None of the records from that period have been digitized yet, so the only way to check them is by actually going to Washington and visiting the physical card catalogue, or paying a researcher to do it for you. Obviously this added effort and expense drastically limits the appeal of these suddenly-not-so-public domain works—and as the numbers from Amazon demonstrate, it's having a very real effect. Publishers are clearly eager to offer public domain titles, but are only comfortable doing so when the lack of copyright is guaranteed. All those later works are effectively removed from the public domain, preventing economic activity and making them hard for people to obtain.

(emphasis added)

I take your point though, that if the U.S. implemented a renewal system now it wouldn't face the same issue (i.e. because the records would be electronic in the first place).

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

It hasn't actually worked that well. There's an interesting article here from Techdirt that describes the problem in more detail. You're minimizing how difficult it actually is to check the status of copyright on works; the problem is that the records themselves haven't been scanned and aren't searchable. So the result is that no one is bothering, and the works are effectively being lost.

This is not true. Distributed Proofreaders scanned the records and proofread them, at least for non-periodical written works, and the results of this are used at the Stanford Copyright Renewals Database, but it's not authoritative in the courts. You'll still need to go to the Library of Congress to check the records if you get sued.

Also, there are cases where there are name changes that cause problems. At least one magazine serial got pulled from Project Gutenberg because the novel was copyrighted under a different name. Project Gutenberg has stopped giving clearances for post-1923, but they intend to allow post-1923 clearances again after they finish vetting their copyright clearance rule changes for this class.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

This is not true. Distributed Proofreaders scanned the records and proofread them, at least for non-periodical written works, and the results of this are used at the Stanford Copyright Renewals Database, but it's not authoritative in the courts. You'll still need to go to the Library of Congress to check the records if you get sued.

Also, there are cases where there are name changes that cause problems. At least one magazine serial got pulled from Project Gutenberg because the novel was copyrighted under a different name. Project Gutenberg has stopped giving clearances for post-1923, but they intend to allow post-1923 clearances again after they finish vetting their copyright clearance rule changes for this class.

Interesting, I was unaware!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Under the current system, they first have to determine if the author is alive or dead. If he is dead, when he died, and then they have to track down whoever inherited the rights to the book. This is often a non-trivial task which is why many books are considered orphan works.

--
Bill

The "life+x" system that every other country in the world (AFAIK) uses does, however, make it enormously easier to determine whether or not a book is in the public domain, because only one piece of information is required: the date of death of the author.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "life+x" system that every other country in the world (AFAIK) uses does, however, make it enormously easier to determine whether or not a book is in the public domain, because only one piece of information is required: the date of death of the author.

Certainly not true in the U.S. that date of death is all you need, though I'll grant the U.S. is recently to life+. It's also not true for Canada. Anything published after the authors death is published+50 rather than life+50. I expect there are other countries that have exceptions as well.

Greg Weeks

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "life+x" system that every other country in the world (AFAIK) uses does, however, make it enormously easier to determine whether or not a book is in the public domain, because only one piece of information is required: the date of death of the author.

That's assuming you know which "John Smith" wrote "The Marvelous Book". How does the "life+x" deal with an obscure author with no biographical information associated with the book? The old US system only required you to know copyright date, which is normally included with the work, and a database of renewals.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

That's assuming you know which "John Smith" wrote "The Marvelous Book". How does the "life+x" deal with an obscure author with no biographical information associated with the book? The old US system only required you to know copyright date, which is normally included with the work, and a database of renewals.

That's an interesting question; I imagine in the "life+x" countries, it's common practice to apply actuarial assumptions in cases where the author's date of death can't be determined (e.g. you can assume a life span of x years for a male born on x date). It probably doesn't come up that often in any event.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

That's an interesting question; I imagine in the "life+x" countries, it's common practice to apply actuarial assumptions in cases where the author's date of death can't be determined (e.g. you can assume a life span of x years for a male born on x date). It probably doesn't come up that often in any event.

It is interesting. What does one do if they aren't able to determine date of death? Is there anything in copyright laws that cover this?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

That's an interesting question; I imagine in the "life+x" countries, it's common practice to apply actuarial assumptions in cases where the author's date of death can't be determined (e.g. you can assume a life span of x years for a male born on x date). It probably doesn't come up that often in any event.

I think it will become more of an issue over the next decade or two as the switch from paper book to ebook continues. There's a lot of upfront expenditures for creating a new print edition, but all it takes for an ebook is a dedicated fan and a few hours. Of course, one of the problems with the multi-generation copyright terms, most older works except for best sellers will be forgotten by the next generation.

[petrucci]

One danger in limiting the term of copyrights is that when a work falls out of copyright its value drops, as a fee no longer must be paid to the copyright holder. Over time it can become increasingly difficult to reap financial rewards from creating a new work, as you have to compete with centuries of masterpieces.

In the TV industry, when old shows became more available, they opted to make lots of cheap reality junk. The music industry has done this for years.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by petrucci

One danger in limiting the term of copyrights is that when a work falls out of copyright its value drops, as a fee no longer must be paid to the copyright holder. Over time it can become increasingly difficult to reap financial rewards from creating a new work, as you have to compete with centuries of masterpieces.

In the TV industry, when old shows became more available, they opted to make lots of cheap reality junk. The music industry has done this for years.

That's just lame and makes me feel no sympathy.

So...the "new" people can't compete. *goes rummaging for my tiny violin*

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by petrucci

One danger in limiting the term of copyrights is that when a work falls out of copyright its value drops, as a fee no longer must be paid to the copyright holder. Over time it can become increasingly difficult to reap financial rewards from creating a new work, as you have to compete with centuries of masterpieces.

In the TV industry, when old shows became more available, they opted to make lots of cheap reality junk. The music industry has done this for years.

There's always a balance that needs to be struck in copyright. If you extend copyright too far (as many in this thread are suggesting has already been done), you provide an incentive for copyrightholders to rest on their laurels and rely on their old works rather than create new ones. You also prevent people from making use of that old work (at least for a longer time) in a transformative way and risk it falling into obscurity before the copyright period is up. Of course, if you limit copyright too much you risk not providing creators with enough incentive to create.

Regarding your comment about reality tv, I have to disagree; I don't think the rise of reality tv has anything to do with old works becoming more widely available. At least I've never read anything that indicates these things are related at all. People are always going to demand new shows and and tv execs just realized that reality shows were a cheap and easy way to pump out new content with minimal cost/effort.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

One danger in limiting the term of copyrights is that when a work falls out of copyright its value drops, as a fee no longer must be paid to the copyright holder. Over time it can become increasingly difficult to reap financial rewards from creating a new work, as you have to compete with centuries of masterpieces.

In the TV industry, when old shows became more available, they opted to make lots of cheap reality junk. The music industry has done this for years.

Then create something better. People keep reading new books and keep watching new movies. Romance novels still sell well despite Jane Austen's books being available for free. Arguably, Jane Austen's books are books are better, but new stuff still sells quite well.

Old TV shows have nothing to do with reality TV. Reality TV is popular because it is cheap to make. Network TV doesn't run old episodes of TV shows. Those old episodes tend to air on fringe stations or at hours with poor ratings.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Regarding your comment about reality tv, I have to disagree; I don't think the rise of reality tv has anything to do with old works becoming more widely available. At least I've never read anything that indicates these things are related at all. People are always going to demand new shows and and tv execs just realized that reality shows were a cheap and easy way to pump out new content with minimal cost/effort.

An obvious question is why not make a better show that is more likely to have a longer lasting appeal? Such a show may cost more to produce than a reality show (although this is not necessarily the case), but it will likely make more money. One answer that comes to mind is that such shows have to compete with older classics. The rise in reality TV coincided with the increased availability of old TV shows on the net, and on DVD.

I think that the competition from classics is one reason that new styles and genres develop.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by petrucci

An obvious question is why not make a better show that is more likely to have a longer lasting appeal? Such a show may cost more to produce than a reality show (although this is not necessarily the case), but it will likely make more money. One answer that comes to mind is that such shows have to compete with older classics. The rise in reality TV coincided with the increased availability of old TV shows on the net, and on DVD.

I think that the competition from classics is one reason that new styles and genres develop.

I doubt that sincerely. There are tons of old TV shows...but there are tons of new TV shows every year.

IMO the reason reality TV shows are being cranked out more often than new TV shows is based in the lack of creativity in Hollywood. Why pay writers and brainstorm and do all that work when "the stupid viewers" will be just as happy with A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila or some rendition of The Real Housewives of.... And since people eat that crap up...why bother with more work?

Because - and lets be real - do you honestly think that teenagers and 20 somethings are watching Green Acres, Mister Ed or Happy Days? For some strange reason I just can't see it...