How Copyright Made Mid-Century Books Vanish

[speakingtohe]

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.

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.)

Most people can legally do anything if they have enough money or determination behind them. I can't legally own a Porsche because I cannot pay for one without saving up for longer than I am willing to do. In all respect a desire to open a website to host music or books that you do not legally own being thwarted by copyright sounds a bit like Giggletonese to me.

And speaking hypothetically if you were willing to spend a lot of time and energy, you could set up a reasonable website with legal content, that might attract rights holders to it willing to allow you to distribute their music legally. A bit of a slog I am sure, and not a free lunch, but as in most areas the free lunch is not available.

Personally, if it was my dream to host calypso music specifically from the 50's and 60's I would start with public domain works from the 40's or earlier, make something classy and appeal to those who are not making a profit on their rights as a way to preserve the memories.

But my overall opinion is that just because an individual want to make a website on a specific or nonspecific area of copyrighted works without paying the copyright due is not enough reason to remove copyright laws. If the works are not currently available for love or money, wait. Make do with what is available. Their is that one in a million obscure work I am sure that would make the world a far richer place if it was available tomorrow, or 20 years ago, and has us all hanging upside down waiting for it, but for the life of me I can't remember it's name. Alzheimer's perhaps.

Helen

[tompe]

The goal of copyright is to make things available to the public. So if copyright causes things to not be available then there is a problem that indicates that maybe we have to change something.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

The goal of copyright is to make things available to the public. So if copyright vauses things to not be available then there is a problem that indicates that maybe we have to change something.

You are right about the goal IMO. It is to encourage creators to create by giving them a certain time to profit from their work.

The other goal is to make these works more available in time by removing the copyright.

Some people want the rights to distribute these works before this time, whether from altruism or for profit. I don't think they are entitled to that right without time and effort and possibly spending money to attain their goal. Just my opinion.

I don't think copyright is perfect, but I don't think it is the main cause of books or music etc. not being available.

In fact I think that most works are available that have not been physically obliterated. The fact that you may have to hunt them down and/or pay a hefty price for them does not make them unavailable, nor does the fact that you may have to travel to a museum or another country to see them make them unavailable. You or I may not want to pay the asking price or be unable to, but this only makes them unobtainable by us.

Removing copyright would not stop everyone from writing, but is it right that they get no rewards from their work? And what is the magic number that would make everyone happy?

Helen

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

In fact I think that most works are available that have not been physically obliterated. The fact that you may have to hunt them down and/or pay a hefty price for them does not make them unavailable, nor does the fact that you may have to travel to a museum or another country to see them make them unavailable. You or I may not want to pay the asking price or be unable to, but this only makes them unobtainable by us.

They are unavailable with respect to the availability goal with copyright. The goal is to make thing being present in the culture. It is not enough that one copy exist somewhere in the world.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by rkomar

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.

Capitalism? Do what's best for your own personal bottom line (in the short term) and the devil take anyone else?

Or at least that's how its implemented. Point is, trying to tell big businesses that American culture is more important than their bottom line is going to bring allegations of Communism or Socialism, and a fast trip out for any politician who tries it.

It also implies that reading is part of American culture in the first place. I'm not so sure it ever was.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Most people can legally do anything if they have enough money or determination behind them. I can't legally own a Porsche because I cannot pay for one without saving up for longer than I am willing to do. In all respect a desire to open a website to host music or books that you do not legally own being thwarted by copyright sounds a bit like Giggletonese to me.

And speaking hypothetically if you were willing to spend a lot of time and energy, you could set up a reasonable website with legal content, that might attract rights holders to it willing to allow you to distribute their music legally. A bit of a slog I am sure, and not a free lunch, but as in most areas the free lunch is not available.

Personally, if it was my dream to host calypso music specifically from the 50's and 60's I would start with public domain works from the 40's or earlier, make something classy and appeal to those who are not making a profit on their rights as a way to preserve the memories.

But my overall opinion is that just because an individual want to make a website on a specific or nonspecific area of copyrighted works without paying the copyright due is not enough reason to remove copyright laws. If the works are not currently available for love or money, wait. Make do with what is available. Their is that one in a million obscure work I am sure that would make the world a far richer place if it was available tomorrow, or 20 years ago, and has us all hanging upside down waiting for it, but for the life of me I can't remember it's name. Alzheimer's perhaps.

Helen

Helen, all audio recording are under copyright until 2076 in the US. (They have their own copyright length and legislation...)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

You are right about the goal IMO. It is to encourage creators to create by giving them a certain time to profit from their work.

The other goal is to make these works more available in time by removing the copyright.

Some people want the rights to distribute these works before this time, whether from altruism or for profit. I don't think they are entitled to that right without time and effort and possibly spending money to attain their goal. Just my opinion.

I don't think copyright is perfect, but I don't think it is the main cause of books or music etc. not being available.

In fact I think that most works are available that have not been physically obliterated. The fact that you may have to hunt them down and/or pay a hefty price for them does not make them unavailable, nor does the fact that you may have to travel to a museum or another country to see them make them unavailable. You or I may not want to pay the asking price or be unable to, but this only makes them unobtainable by us.

Removing copyright would not stop everyone from writing, but is it right that they get no rewards from their work? And what is the magic number that would make everyone happy?

Helen

I do not advocate scrapping copyright, just excessive length for copyright. Until 1976, it used to be 56 years, max. Nobody had a problem with works being created, But when Hollyweird start to realize that their sound movies were going to start going into the public domain, bingo, copyright extension. And, extension, and extension...And the MPAA makes no bones about that they feel the proper length of copyright should be forever - 1 year (so it would fit the "limited" length prescribed in the US Constitution.

At 56 years, the public domain would start at 1956, currently...(And all those works were created under the 56 year regime, the creators knew that when they did the creation...)

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Helen, all audio recording are under copyright until 2076 in the US. (They have their own copyright length and legislation...)

Interesting. Didn't know that.

Helen

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Helen, all audio recording are under copyright until 2076 in the US.

That's not entirely correct. A lot of US radio programmes are in the public domain.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I do not advocate scrapping copyright, just excessive length for copyright. Until 1976, it used to be 56 years, max. Nobody had a problem with works being created, But when Hollyweird start to realize that their sound movies were going to start going into the public domain, bingo, copyright extension. And, extension, and extension...And the MPAA makes no bones about that they feel the proper length of copyright should be forever - 1 year (so it would fit the "limited" length prescribed in the US Constitution.

At 56 years, the public domain would start at 1956, currently...(And all those works were created under the 56 year regime, the creators knew that when they did the creation...)

Well 56 years seems reasonable, as does life plus 30. Personally I have no problem with life plus 75 years. But this is because I am in no danger personally of running out of books to read, music to listen to etc. And I have no aspirations of gaining fame or fortune which copyright is preventing.

Life saving medication I feel differently about, but this is probably an emotional thing as I know that there are plenty of starving people in the world who could be provided with lifesaving food that aren't. And in reality I should be giving far more to charity than I do, so can't cast stones.

I don't see copyright changes significantly enriching the world, but then again I am lucky in that I am not seriously in need of anything.

Helen

[Greg Anos]

Please see the following link.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/

(third paragraph):

Although sound recordings were first given federal copyright protection in 1972, sound recordings made before February 15, 1972 remained protected under state law rather than under the federal copyright statute. As a result, there are a variety of legal regimes governing protection of pre-1972 sound recordings in the various states, and the scope of protection and of exceptions and limitations to that protection is unclear. Current law provides that pre-1972 sound recordings may remain protected under state law until February 15, 2067. After that date they will enter the public domain.

.
.
.

The term of protection for sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 should be 95 years from publication or, if the work had not been published prior to the effective date of legislation federalizing protection, 120 years from fixation. However,


In no case would protection continue past February 15, 2067, and


In cases where the foregoing terms would expire before 2067, a right holder may obtain extended protection for any pre-1972 sound recording by making that recording available to the public at a reasonable price and, during a transition period of several years, notifying the Copyright Office of its intention to secure extended protection.


Welcome to the wonderful world of US copyright....

[speakingtohe]

Now I am confused. It says they may remain protected under state law, but not that they all are protected till 1972 as you stated earlier?

Well I will be long dead by 2076, but it is an interesting concept of a veritable flood of recordings being made public domain on one day. Will there be partying in the streets, or will very few notice. Where is that time travel machine when I want it.

Helen

[HarryT]

Do a Google search for "old time radio copyright", Ralph. It would appear that all radio programmes made in the US prior to 1978 are in the public domain, because US copyright law prior to that time did not provide copyright protection for such work. You'll find huge numbers of such programmes available for download at sites such as www.archive.org.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do a Google search for "old time radio copyright", Ralph. It would appear that all radio programmes made in the US prior to 1978 are in the public domain, because US copyright law prior to that time did not provide copyright protection for such work. You'll find huge numbers of such programmes available for download at sites such as www.archive.org.

Harry, this is complex, even by US copyright standards. You are correct that there was no pre 1978 (actually, in this case 1972, as that date was explicitly written in the 1978 act for sound recordings) Federal copyright capabilities.

However, there were state level copyrights for sound recordings. They varied state by state. The longest was 2076, but i don't know what state it was.

Here is California's:

(2) The author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972, has an exclusive ownership therein until February 15, 2047, as against all persons except one who independently makes or duplicates another sound recording that does not directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in such prior sound recording, but consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate the sounds contained in the prior sound recording.

Now that means that in California if you duplicate a sound recording, you violate the California copyright law. (Yes states can have separate copyright laws, they just cannot override Federal copyright law. Since there was no Federal copyright law in this instance (until 2009), it was legal.)

Now how does this affect old time radio? If copyright was applied for in a state (say California) It is under copyright - in that state. (Many radio shows were recorded in California -a side way of making money for Hollywood Stars, blessed by the Studios - free advertising...) That does not mean that copyright was applied for, it just could have been. I haven't read all the laws of all the states. Have mercy, sahib.

So you don't know if these shows were under copyright unless you research all the possible state copyright submissions. And I don't know the terms, California didn't seem to be a 28 year renewable, like US law before 1978.

And it doesn't matter if the copyright holder doesn't contest...

[gweeks]

HarryT and Ralph Sir Edwards: You guys are talking about two different things. Sound recordings sold to the public vs. radio broadcasts. They fall under two different places in the law. I'm not about to argue the details as U.S. copyright law is complex and this isn't an area I've studied.

Greg