How long should a copyright last?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

So you are saying in effect that everyone who published under shorter copyright terms should remain that way and that the vast majority who published and continue to publish under the terms as they are right now should have those rights no matter what the future changes in the law may be?

Seems reasonable.

Helen

Exactly right. I will add (as a sidebar) should this have been enforced, you would not be seeing this serial extension effort, by the big players.

As to copyright length itself, I prefer a fixed length over Life + X because it makes it simple to determine when something goes out of copyright. Trying to find the date of death of a an obscure author (or translator) can be extremely difficult, even in this day and age. It doesn't have to be 56 years, it can be longer. I would have a big problem with anything over 100 years flat. That averages out to around Life + 50. (Some shorter, some longer)

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

If Fritz Leiber's books or Samuel R. Delaney's went into the public domain
today would you reap big benefits? Maybe you would or maybe a whole lot of people would be selling ugly copies. Lotta that going around even with newer books one hears. And of course in most cases you can borrow or buy the paper copies for a buck or so.

At least two of Samuel R. Delany's books are in the public domain as well as some number of Fritz Leiber's stories.

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a41419
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a25421

Greg

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

What your examples are missing is the understanding that the period of copyright is about acquiring "the profits of their labour" (or trying to). Example one is being paid as he goes. Example two is hoping that he will eventually get paid something. When person one dies his superannuation and outstanding wages are still his, they don't fall into the public domain just because he died.

The second may, eventually, also get money to invest the same way as example one, but he's also lost the investment period between the labour and the income (if any) for that labour. This is not trying to "cry poor", it's merely pointing out that they are different income models and such simple comparisons don't hold up very well.



I do have a certain amount of sympathy for this view - that the retrospective changes to copyright may seem unfair, it wasn't the original bargain. But aside from the few outliers, the evil corporations who gain large profit from this change, I don't actually see the change as that significant overall - not in its real value impact to the public domain. (But, as noted earlier, my own priorities lean heavily toward wanting original, not derivative work.)

Are you saying that the public domain would not be enriched by the works (at least in part) of Hemmingway, Faulkner, Hammett, Chandler, Cabell, the golden age of Science Fiction writings, Doc Savage, The Shadow, various poets (e e cummings, Frost, ect), Thurber, Zane Grey, ect? (All of which would have been in the public domain for their writing from 1923 to 1956, as of this post.)

And that's not including movies, and potentially music (special situation) and other artforms.

The public domain in the US has been frozen for 34 years (and will remain frozen for at least another 6 years), just to keep the coffer big media players filled. Everywhere else in the world has Public Domain day every year, we've had 1 P.D. day in 35 years (and that was considered an accident that should never have happened.)

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Are you saying that the public domain would not be enriched by the works (at least in part) of Hemmingway, Faulkner, Hammett, Chandler, Cabell, the golden age of Science Fiction writings, Doc Savage, The Shadow, various poets (e e cummings, Frost, ect), Thurber, Zane Grey, ect? (All of which would have been in the public domain for their writing from 1923 to 1956, as of this post.)[...]

Not at all. The public domain will be enriched by these works in due course. What is rather harder to define is the relative value of that enrichment now versus some years later, since most of these books are available to read now for those that want them. Obviously people with different priorities to mine will calculate the value differently.

How soon do we want "The Torrents of Zombies" and "The Old Man and the Zombie"? Sorry, I know I should try harder to restraint my tendency for glib - but if we are not talking about the ability to create derivative works then what other enrichment value (as opposed to simply making the books free for those that don't like libraries) do you see in their earlier entry into the public domain?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by gmw

Not at all. The public domain will be enriched by these works in due course. What is rather harder to define is the relative value of that enrichment now versus some years later, since most of these books are available to read now for those that want them. Obviously people with different priorities to mine will calculate the value differently.

How soon do we want "The Torrents of Zombies" and "The Old Man and the Zombie"? Sorry, I know I should try harder to restraint my tendency for glib - but if we are not talking about the ability to create derivative works then what other enrichment value (as opposed to simply making the books free for those that don't like libraries) do you see in their earlier entry into the public domain?

In my case, the "enrichment value" is being able to read them at all. For example, I can't find E.E. Smith's Lensman books available in print anywhere. I can get used paper copies, but those don't benefit anyone but the seller. The author is dead, and his estate obviously isn't interested in re-publishing the books.

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

Not at all. The public domain will be enriched by these works in due course. What is rather harder to define is the relative value of that enrichment now versus some years later, since most of these books are available to read now for those that want them. Obviously people with different priorities to mine will calculate the value differently.

How soon do we want "The Torrents of Zombies" and "The Old Man and the Zombie"? Sorry, I know I should try harder to restraint my tendency for glib - but if we are not talking about the ability to create derivative works then what other enrichment value (as opposed to simply making the books free for those that don't like libraries) do you see in their earlier entry into the public domain?

What due course? The "due course" should have already been in the public domain. If you say starting in 2018, what assurance that the very organizations that extended the copyright in 1978 and 1998 won't do it again in 2018?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What due course? The "due course" should have already been in the public domain. If you say starting in 2018, what assurance that the very organizations that extended the copyright in 1978 and 1998 won't do it again in 2018?

There certainly will be a push to extend the copyright period by 2018. Works won't enter the public domain by due course, but only if legislatures resist the pressure to extend copyright yet again. Extending it over and over again eventually doesn't qualify as 'limited times'.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by shalym

In my case, the "enrichment value" is being able to read them at all. For example, I can't find E.E. Smith's Lensman books available in print anywhere. I can get used paper copies, but those don't benefit anyone but the seller. The author is dead, and his estate obviously isn't interested in re-publishing the books.

Triplanetary is available. None of the rest though.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32706

Greg

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by shalym

In my case, the "enrichment value" is being able to read them at all. For example, I can't find E.E. Smith's Lensman books available in print anywhere. I can get used paper copies, but those don't benefit anyone but the seller. The author is dead, and his estate obviously isn't interested in re-publishing the books.

Shari

There may be other factors besides wanting to publish. Sometimes it is not clear who has the rights. Sometimes the rights holder may unwilling or unable to publish it themselves and no publishers are interested but they may be reluctant to relinquish the rights because "It could become valuable any day now".

Sometimes they are unaware that here is any value or even interest in these works.

There are small publishing houses who specialise in tracking down out of print books and getting the rights to publish them. Hard Case Crime publishes several books a year by some still living authors some of who are big names still and still writing. They even have a couple of crime novels by Sci-Fi writers. They produce a quality product and hopefully are doing well.

In the case of Doc Smith it seems his literary executer, Verna Smith Trestrail, whose will may still be in probate, died in 1994 and it is quite possible no one was interested in republishing when she was alive and self publishing was not so easy then.

But it is probably not orphaned. Sounds like a good business opportunity for someone who is passionate about this type of fiction Contact Kim Trestail and make him an offer.I think that the possibilities are high as electronic publishing gains momentum, that someone will do this if they are not in the process already.

Helen

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

There may be other factors besides wanting to publish. Sometimes it is not clear who has the rights. Sometimes the rights holder may unwilling or unable to publish it themselves and no publishers are interested but they may be reluctant to relinquish the rights because "It could become valuable any day now".

Sometimes they are unaware that here is any value or even interest in these works.

There are small publishing houses who specialise in tracking down out of print books and getting the rights to publish them. Hard Case Crime publishes several books a year by some still living authors some of who are big names still and still writing. They even have a couple of crime novels by Sci-Fi writers. They produce a quality product and hopefully are doing well.

In the case of Doc Smith it seems his literary executer, Verna Smith Trestrail, whose will may still be in probate, died in 1994 and it is quite possible no one was interested in republishing when she was alive and self publishing was not so easy then.

But it is probably not orphaned. Sounds like a good business opportunity for someone who is passionate about this type of fiction Contact Kim Trestail and make him an offer.I think that the possibilities are high as electronic publishing gains momentum, that someone will do this if they are not in the process already.

Helen

Not to disagree with anything you said, I will note that the Science Fiction Book Club reprinted omnibus editions of the main 6 Lensman books (and the 4 Skylark books, in the very early 2000's.

(I keep first editions of all the Lensman works...)

(also, a volume of unpublished, non science fiction works was published in 2001 (Have Trenchcoat, Will Travel) )

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What due course? The "due course" should have already been in the public domain. If you say starting in 2018, what assurance that the very organizations that extended the copyright in 1978 and 1998 won't do it again in 2018?

I guess that could happen, in which case I guess there will be another thread here. Life+50 is about as much as I'm willing to argue to support, I think that does the job well enough, but then I've not seen the arguments in support of longer periods (not on here anyway ). It may necessary to start finding ways to more definitively value the public domain if that is going to be used as an argument against further extensions.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by gmw

I guess that could happen, in which case I guess there will be another thread here. Life+50 is about as much as I'm willing to argue to support, I think that does the job well enough, but then I've not seen the arguments in support of longer periods (not on here anyway ). It may necessary to start finding ways to more definitively value the public domain if that is going to be used as an argument against further extensions.

Of course it's going to be used. It was the original argument for creating copyright.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Of course it's going to be used. It was the original argument for creating copyright.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If the subject is the value of the public domain then you'll note that I said "more definitively value". If the arguments in support of extending copyright further are financial ones, then the best counter will be a financial one. The public domain has a value but it is difficult to define and measure, and I suspect its value may have changed since copyright was first introduced.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm not sure what you mean here. If the subject is the value of the public domain then you'll note that I said "more definitively value". If the arguments in support of extending copyright further are financial ones, then the best counter will be a financial one. The public domain has a value but it is difficult to define and measure, and I suspect its value may have changed since copyright was first introduced.

You have no basis for limiting the value of the commons to money.
How do you think the value of the commons might have changed?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

You have no basis for limiting the value of the commons to money.
How do you think the value of the commons might have changed?

If you read carefully you may notice that I'm not arguing for a further copyright extension, I'm looking for ways to make the argument against extension more effective. So I wasn't "limiting" the value to money, I was suggesting that finding/defining a financial value is more likely to be an effective counter for financial ones arguing for further extensions.

A few things have changed in the last few hundred years. More people have access to the public domain for a start, and ebooks and ventures like Project Gutenberg have increased that access even more. The accessibility arguments (ability to access the material in forms suitable for various disabilities) presented by people here are also factors that could perhaps be valued in monetary terms. I'm not sure how many fan-fiction authors there were a hundred years ago, but I know there are a lot now. Also movie rights and other forms of derivation from original works all have at least a potential monetary value that could be estimated. Give a dollar value to counter a dollar value. That doesn't take away from the less tangible benefits of the public domain, but the tangible values are less easy to dismiss or reduce in importance.