How Copyright Made Mid-Century Books Vanish

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by antithesis

Certainly this example is the exception, not the rule, no?

<shrug> Most of Michner's output is owned by a university. They have not seem interested in licensing it...So, no Space, Texas, Hawaii, or Tales of the South Pacific

Roger Zelanzy's works are hung up between two feuding women...

There are others...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Kindle Direct Publishing question:

What happens today when the average eBook author dies, with or without a will?

I suppose Amazon doesn't know until a royalty payment -- say, a direct deposit of US$15 -- comes back as account closed. Does the book then vanish? If not, why not?

Depends on the terms of the contract. They could use interpleader and keep on publishing...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I've said before that one way publishers could in a small way turn the tables on pirates would be to download pirated versions of out of print books that they own the rights to. Not completely sure about the legalities involved, but it doesn't seem that unethical at a glance.

And of course if Google is allowed to make copies of all books and if they are converting them to text and proofreading them, then it seems that they should at least provide the rights holder with a copy. For the courts to decide I guess. So they have the book, can be sold as is with a warning or probably proofread fairly cheaply. I doubt layout would have to be all that fancy.

Or maybe the various government could set up a system whereby the rights could be donated to Gutenberg or a charitable organization set up for this purpose and receive a set tax deduction.

A lot of out of print books are being sold as ebooks today and they are pretty decent quality for the most part. Hard Case Crime does an excellent job and I believe many of their books were out of print as paper and the authors are still living. Older works of Lawrence Block and Max Allan Collins for example.

Books go out of print for the most part because of supply and demand rules, same as whalebone corsets and the Model T. Sure you can buy a Model T or a whalebone corset, and you can probably buy a paper copy of most out of print books from a collector or specialty dealer. Might cost a few bucks, but if it is worth it you will pay the price.

And if the world will collapse because a specific work is not available because the rights holders aren't known, then I say re-publish it and be prepared to pay the penalties, You would probably not be fined to high, being a world savior and all.

Helen

Helen, it really all goes back to Hollyweird. They aren't going to let any movie they have go into the public domain. And they don't care how much collateral damage there is. The music industry is just as bad. It's just that it's far easier to have a copy of music to convert to digital. But how many obscure jazz master tapes from the 1940's and 1950's have been allowed to disintegrate - all in the name of long copyright for a few famous acts...

(But they didn't matter. We took care of the important ones (e.g. the ones lots of people will pay for...)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Depends on the terms of the contract.

The legalese is here:

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishi...=APILE934L348N

I read it, but it doesn't answer for me the question of what happens to the eBook when the author disappears. There's language that seems to imply Amazon can choose to either terminate, or to hold on to the royalties until a plausible successor or assign shows up. So do they ever terminate? If so, copyrighted eBooks are vanishing as we discuss this.

Given the large number of indie eBook authors who agree to the standard Amazon legal terms, I can't believe a week goes by without one, or several, dying intestate, or with literary matters unmentioned in their will. There must be a real life answer to the question of whether the book vanishes when the eBook distributor no longer knows to whom to pay a small royalty.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Helen, it really all goes back to Hollyweird. They aren't going to let any movie they have go into the public domain. And they don't care how much collateral damage there is. The music industry is just as bad. It's just that it's far easier to have a copy of music to convert to digital. But how many obscure jazz master tapes from the 1940's and 1950's have been allowed to disintegrate - all in the name of long copyright for a few famous acts...

(But they didn't matter. We took care of the important ones (e.g. the ones lots of people will pay for...)

Bizarrely a friend of mine in her 90's was trying to get someone interested in her husbands Jazz collection. Not master tapes by any means, but some were rare, and she would have given them to a good home. Her husband was a Jazz musician himself and had about 40 boxes of LPs. I think they were probably thrown out.

Money is how we value things I am afraid, and often if it is free no-one values it. I am sure the obscure tapes are of value to someone, but to who and how much. DO we say that everything must be saved? If so it is simple, (haha nothing is ever simple, but for the sake of argument) pass a law that every work that can possibly be considered art must be preserved in perpetuity by the rights holder. Eventually they will run out of room for non digital items and start relinquishing those rights. I am being a tad facetious here, but answering your belief that all art good or bad, popular or obscure should be preserved. Even before copyright books and other art were lost. Nothing to do with rights. ANd we often only know they were lost when they are found.

Those that think that copyright will destroy any current works that are digitised are seeing reality than I am. Possibly they are right, but many old BBC films were destroyed (Tapes written over) and have surfaced from home recordings and illicit copies made by employees and others. Some I believe were even purchased by BBC and sold on DVD, although I have no actual proof of that. Could be a rumour.

Ebooks and scanned books, taped, ripped and bootlegged music , even old computer games are not likely to disappear into the ether unless there is zero interest in them. Even then they will probably linger on.

Helen

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Bizarrely a friend of mine in her 90's was trying to get someone interested in her husbands Jazz collection. Not master tapes by any means, but some were rare, and she would have given them to a good home. Her husband was a Jazz musician himself and had about 40 boxes of LPs. I think they were probably thrown out.

Money is how we value things I am afraid, and often if it is free no-one values it. I am sure the obscure tapes are of value to someone, but to who and how much. DO we say that everything must be saved? If so it is simple, (haha nothing is ever simple, but for the sake of argument) pass a law that every work that can possibly be considered art must be preserved in perpetuity by the rights holder. Eventually they will run out of room for non digital items and start relinquishing those rights. I am being a tad facetious here, but answering your belief that all art good or bad, popular or obscure should be preserved. Even before copyright books and other art were lost. Nothing to do with rights. ANd we often only know they were lost when they are found.

Those that think that copyright will destroy any current works that are digitised are seeing reality than I am. Possibly they are right, but many old BBC films were destroyed (Tapes written over) and have surfaced from home recordings and illicit copies made by employees and others. Some I believe were even purchased by BBC and sold on DVD, although I have no actual proof of that. Could be a rumour.

Ebooks and scanned books, taped, ripped and bootlegged music , even old computer games are not likely to disappear into the ether unless there is zero interest in them. Even then they will probably linger on.

Helen

The problem with copyright in these cases is that no one can legally save obscure works. Someone might want to host a "library" (web site) of obscure works that nobody else values (think Project Gutenberg), but they are legally prevented from doing so, so that a handful of famous works can be monetized in perpetuity. Maybe nobody cares about them, maybe somebody might choose to rediscover them. But as it is, most likely they'll never have that chance.

Will all works be preserved? Of course not. But if I decided to save, say 50's and 60's calypso music (and make available - with my labor and time and money for hosting resources), I can't - unless I want to be a criminal...

(The BBC stories are true. A number of Doctor Who episodes were saved from the dumpster (literally) and bought and sold at flea markets, et. al. And eventually given back to the BBC for making DVD's of.)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Ebooks and scanned books, taped, ripped and bootlegged music , even old computer games are not likely to disappear into the ether unless there is zero interest in them. Even then they will probably linger on.

I can guarantee this. I make so many backups of my digital stuff (ebooks, music, games) that I can't store the hard disks anymore. I'm now burying them 10 feet deep into the ground, spread through the entire country.

Someday, people will dig them up and put all the pieces together

As if :P But you're right: Digital stuff can be more easily preserved than physical stuff IF the format to create the works is open, documented, and well supported in its time. In that case, there is a chance that the format will be supported far into the future, or be replaced by a new format to which the works can be converted. If the format used is obscure, not well documented or badly supported, the work will probably end up in oblivion.

It's actually quite easy to find computer games from the 80's online, for every imaginable platform. While it's illegal, nobody actually seems to care, because they're out of print, the machines they run on are not manufactured anymore, and those games don't bring the creators or the publishers any money anymore, not even *if* they still tried to sell them.

It looks like as if the creators and publishers (if they even still exist, and if it's known who has the rights) let the emulator community have fun with the old stuff if they want to.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The problem with copyright in these cases is that no one can legally save obscure works. Someone might want to host a "library" (web site) of obscure works that nobody else values (think Project Gutenberg), but they are legally prevented from doing so, so that a handful of famous works can be monetized in perpetuity. Maybe nobody cares about them, maybe somebody might choose to rediscover them. But as it is, most likely they'll never have that chance.

That's the reason that we have copyright libraries: the Library of Congress in the US; the British Library in the UK, etc. Their role is to preserve obscure works.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the reason that we have copyright libraries: the Library of Congress in the US; the British Library in the UK, etc. Their role is to preserve obscure works.

They may preserve, but what access? The public cannot access the preserved works without risking them to damage, so they exist, generally unavailable...

[HarryT]

I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in the UK anyone can go to the British Library reading room and gain access to any work in the collection.

It was, however, your comment that "nobody can legally save obscure works" that I was disagreeing with, since this is the precise reason that copyright libraries exist.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in the UK anyone can go to the British Library reading room and gain access to any work in the collection.

It was, however, your comment that "nobody can legally save obscure works" that I was disagreeing with, since this is the precise reason that copyright libraries exist.

Would you prefer "no private individual or organization"?

So to read a copy of an obscure book I must travel to London, in person?

That's access?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So to read a copy of an obscure book I must travel to London, in person?

There's some "public" records that states charge tens of thousands of dollars for access to. By comparison, a trip to London might cost me only a few hundred bucks.

[HarryT]

It's rather unlikely that a copyright library would be the only place that a book would be available; I'd suggest trying your local library first.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's rather unlikely that a copyright library would be the only place that a book would be available; I'd suggest trying your local library first.

The Library of Congress is an interlibrary loan provider of last resort. Once my neighborhood library obtained a book for me from there. Due to not being a member of congress, I had to read it in the library.

This isn't to criticize the OP article, with which I agree.

P.S. And does the Library of Congress offer international interlibrary loan? Only for a fee that may be prohibitive.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by teh603

There's some "public" records that states charge tens of thousands of dollars for access to. By comparison, a trip to London might cost me only a few hundred bucks.

Your point is that it could be worse, but the question is: Is what we have now good enough? It is if the only criterion is to make sure that the book doesn't entirely disappear from the world. However, having a book in the LOC doesn't make it relevant in the country's culture. The fact that so many books are now kept out of the culture by copyright says to me that the terms are out of balance. This artificial scarcity of cheap older books is beneficial to those selling new books, so extending the length of terms isn't just about keeping Mickey in copyright.