Why e-books?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I still have the Zen of Assembly Language sitting in by bookshelf. It was invaluable if you were into assembly language back then.

I have Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[barryem]

I'm all for copyright as long as it's about authors and publishers getting paid. It should never stand in the way of a book's availability. Copyright is about the right to distribute and it shouldn't include the right to withhold. We readers are worth something too.

Barry

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm all for copyright as long as it's about authors and publishers getting paid. It should never stand in the way of a book's availability. Copyright is about the right to distribute and it shouldn't include the right to withhold. We readers are worth something too.

Barry

This is why copyright is supposed to be time limited. What's supposed to happen is that, after the copyright term expires, the protected work enters the public domain. The big problem with copyright in the US (and the parts of the world the US has successfully browbeat into following) is that copyright terms keep being extended in order to keep "Steamboat Willie" out of the public domain.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ratinox

This is why copyright is supposed to be time limited. What's supposed to happen is that, after the copyright term expires, the protected work enters the public domain. The big problem with copyright in the US (and the parts of the world the US has successfully browbeat into following) is that copyright terms keep being extended in order to keep "Steamboat Willie" out of the public domain.

There are good arguments that Steamboat Willie is already in the public domain.

There's a wager currently running on MobileRead about copyright length in the US.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ratinox

This is why copyright is supposed to be time limited. What's supposed to happen is that, after the copyright term expires, the protected work enters the public domain. The big problem with copyright in the US (and the parts of the world the US has successfully browbeat into following) is that copyright terms keep being extended in order to keep "Steamboat Willie" out of the public domain.

Technically, it should be the parts of the world that France has successfully browbeat into following. The overall copyright treaty is the Berne Convention of 1886, which says that copyright must extend to at least 50 years after the death of the author's death. Victor Hugo, the French author, was the prime driver behind the Berne Convention. I blame the Mouse for US copyright and likely that helped to drive the US to sign the Berne Convention in 1988, but the rest of the world has France to thank, not Uncle Walt.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by barryem

Copyright is about the right to distribute and it shouldn't include the right to withhold.

Copyright law absolutely includes the right not to publish. That's what guarantees you the right to keep your private diary private, for example. The right not to publish is a fundamental part of copyright law. It's about you, as the author, deciding who has the right to make copies of your work. If your decision is "nobody", that's absolutely your right.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Technically, it should be the parts of the world that France has successfully browbeat into following. The overall copyright treaty is the Berne Convention of 1886, which says that copyright must extend to at least 50 years after the death of the author's death. Victor Hugo, the French author, was the prime driver behind the Berne Convention. I blame the Mouse for US copyright and likely that helped to drive the US to sign the Berne Convention in 1988, but the rest of the world has France to thank, not Uncle Walt.

Kinda but not. Prior to the passing of the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright in the US required formal, costly registration. Registration lasted 28 years and could be renewed once for an additional 28 years for a total of 56 years. This caused lots of problems as works that were copyrighted in one nation were considered public domain in others.

The Copyright Act brought the US in line with the rest of the world in terms of duration (life + 50 years). This is, IMO, the lesser of the two big changes. The greater of the two is that copyright is inherent in any creative work as soon as it is given tangible form. This is huge. It means that anyone and everyone can be a creator and have their works protected by copyright law, not just those fortunate enough to be wealthy or have wealthy patrons.

Which brings me to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, aka the Sonny Bono Act, aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, which froze the advancement date for works automatically entering the public domain in the US. And this in turn brings me to secret trade treaties like the TPP carrying DMCA-style and copyright term extension provisions which the US, notably backed by the MPAA, has been strong-arming other nations into signing.

France may have started it but Big Content players in the US have been pushing it further every chance they get.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The right not to publish is a fundamental part of copyright law.

Absoluetly you are right.

But I think Barry was referencing back to his earlier post about Lee Gruenfeld who would like to put e-books out but his publisher will not do so and will not allow him to do so.

I'm not debating the finer points of the law. Of course they are within their legal right. But it is a shame these things happen. Business decisions like this only promotes piracy.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Absoluetly you are right.

But I think Barry was referencing back to his earlier post about Lee Gruenfeld who would like to put e-books out but his publisher will not do so and will not allow him to do so.

I'm not debating the finer points of the law. Of course they are within their legal right. But it is a shame these things happen. Business decisions like this only promotes piracy.

This leads straight to: what does your contract say.
I have a work I can't publish elsewhere because of the fine print. Luckily it is just a very short story in a magazine.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Absoluetly you are right.

But I think Barry was referencing back to his earlier post about Lee Gruenfeld who would like to put e-books out but his publisher will not do so and will not allow him to do so.

I'm not debating the finer points of the law. Of course they are within their legal right. But it is a shame these things happen. Business decisions like this only promotes piracy.

Nobody is to blame but the author for signing away digital publishing rights without first getting a guarantee that the books would in fact be published as ebooks.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'm not debating the finer points of the law. Of course they are within their legal right. But it is a shame these things happen. Business decisions like this only promotes piracy.

Absolutely. When the only ways to obtain copies of a work are illegal, people will break the law in order to obtain them. And then the old school Big Content players point at such "piracy" and whinge about "lost sales" and how file sharing is killing their businesses.

Which does bring up another answer to the question of "why ebooks?" Digital editions of works are vastly easier to replicate and distribute, legally or otherwise, than physical editions. This makes it less likely for a given work to completely disappear. It also makes it much easier for these works to be distributed in nations with repressive regimes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Absolutely. When the only ways to obtain copies of a work are illegal, people will break the law in order to obtain them.

Can you name one book for which "the only way to obtain it is illegal"? I certainly can't think of one.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you name one book for which "the only way to obtain it is illegal"? I certainly can't think of one.

I can think of a couple but they would be country specific not worldwide.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you name one book for which "the only way to obtain it is illegal"? I certainly can't think of one.

Digital editions of Martin Caidin's "Cyborg" series, which are the source for "The Six Million Dollar Man" TV series. No authorized digital editions of these books exist that I've ever heard of. That's 4.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Digital editions of Martin Caidin's "Cyborg" series, which are the source for "The Six Million Dollar Man" TV series. No authorized digital editions of these books exist that I've ever heard of. That's 4.

"No digital editions exist" is not the same as "the only way to get it is illegal". Buy the paper book. It's a peculiar sense of entitlement to believe that there's some god-given right to an ebook.