Article - 'Harry Potter' among those missing from e-library

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Sonist

So...? I guess the Brits are just lazier, or less capable, or just too drunk to scan...

Although, I never really understood, why publishers insist on changing original content to comply with local conventions. If someone can't figure out why "colour" is spelled wrong, they should probably stick to TV anyway.

Now that woud be a ˈkän-trə-ˌvər-sē!

Or would that be kən-ˈträ-vər-sē?

[sirbruce]

For the record, I read all the Harry Potter books from the UK special editions for the authentic experience.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If copyright protection ended at death, there'd be no financial incentive for anyone on his deathbed to write or compose or publish scientific results. Since the purpose of copyright law is to promote progress, the ability to compensate heirs in the absence of the author is included.

I never really got this.. How many of the people who are "on their death bed", yet are still able to compose/write/blabla, don't just do it because they want to be remembered by whatever it is they're trying to finish? If they're really that driven, I don't really think that a financial incentive matters all that much.
As an example of this mindset, look at J.S. Bach, for instance, who wrote most of his most influential work after he was no longer required to write 1-mass-a-day stuff, knowing that it wouldn't be appreciated by his contemporaries (such as his sons).
OTOH, I could care less about a "deathbed work" by Stephen King/Grisham/etc. as they likely won't add anything insightful to our cultural whole anyway if they hadn't before. Reading works by geriatrics with overly inflated egos is usually more painful than interesting.

[elena]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

For the record, I read all the Harry Potter books from the UK special editions for the authentic experience.

not the most comfortable size, though

and you can't use the lookup function like in the mobi version

[carld]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I agree - I'm afraid the 20th century will go down as the century that saw the death of the Public Domain.

For which we can say "Thank you, Sonny Bono."

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I never really got this.. How many of the people who are "on their death bed", yet are still able to compose/write/blabla, don't just do it because they want to be remembered by whatever it is they're trying to finish? If they're really that driven, I don't really think that a financial incentive matters all that much....
Reading works by geriatrics with overly inflated egos is usually more painful than interesting.

Not so much "on one's deathbed," but if you know copyright expires at death, and you care about leaving as much as possible to your heirs, why not let one of them copyright it? Or co-copyright under both names, even if the other person contributed nothing, in order to allow them the full income? (This is possible now; it's legal to hand over copyright to anyone you like. However, with a system of copyright-ends-at-death, it might become illegal to create this kind of "dodge.")

There's something wrong with a system that rewards inaccuracy, or discourages wide publication efforts because there's no reward involved.

What about collections of unpublished works--who owns copyright on those? If an author would like to have his memoirs finished by his wife and published posthumously, can anyone grab the book and republish it without her intro & final chapter?

If copyright ends at "death of author," does that mean corporate copyrights are no longer permitted? Or they last until dissolution of the corporation, or a set amount of years, giving them a severe economic advantage over many authors?

I'll grant that a lot of popular authors produce schlock, and the schlock doesn't get better as they age. But that doesn't mean they all do, nor that it's a good idea to remove incentives for them to publish later in life. Part of the encouragement provided by copyright law is the awareness that one's efforts can benefit one's heirs.

I'm also not seeing the good in copyright vanishing overnight for authors, composers or songwriters who are victims of murders or accidents. And I really, really don't want any incentives for insane criminal fanatic behavior... "I'll knock off the lead singer of MegaBand 'cos he wrote all their songs, and then everyone can download their music for free! I'll go to prison, but The Music Will Live On!!!"

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not so much "on one's deathbed," ....

A bit of reasonable balancing between interests may allow a period after the death of an author. But 70 years is probably unreasonable.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

A bit of reasonable balancing between interests may allow a period after the death of an author. But 70 years is probably unreasonable.

Even 50 is too much IMHO. 28 years seems like the right amount of time as it was many revisions ago. Something long enough to see that the kids are raised.

Dale

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Even 50 is too much IMHO. 28 years seems like the right amount of time as it was many revisions ago. Something long enough to see that the kids are raised.

Are you assuming the authors have kid just before they die? That must hold for extremely few authors.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Are you assuming the authors have kid just before they die? That must hold for extremely few authors.

Not assuming just allowing for the possible fact.

Dale

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Not assuming just allowing for the possible fact.

I do not get it why we should take these rare cases into consideration if the purpose is to stimulate creative production while minimizing the damage to the public domain commons.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not get it why we should take these rare cases into consideration if the purpose is to stimulate creative production while minimizing the damage to the public domain commons.

Having children is certainly not rare. The current law of 70 years allows for a child that is born at near the time of death and is disabled and can't take care of himself for his entire life of 70 years. That is the rare case and current law.

Dale

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Having children is certainly not rare. The current law of 70 years allows for a child that is born at near the time of death and is disabled and can't take care of himself for his entire life of 70 years. That is the rare case and current law.

Being an author and having a child just before you die must be rare.

Why bring up disabled children? Why should the rest of the world suffer if some countries does not take care of disabled people?

[Sonist]

I have to agree with those who dismiss the "children" issue.

If we go down this path, we may have to also allow for future "frozen sperm" children. And what if a grandchild is disabled?

On the other hand, at some point in the future, life-spans may increase significantly, keeping works created early on in life, out of the public domain for potentially centuries....

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Being an author and having a child just before you die must be rare.

Why bring up disabled children? Why should the rest of the world suffer if some countries does not take care of disabled people?

I only brought it up to show how ridiculous the current law of 70 years is. Couldn't you tell? This is the current law, not what I would support.

Dale