Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That depends entirely on how the content creator chose to dispose of their rights. A content creator who gets a good royalty rate or holds onto their rights will benefit for a long time.



No, what's protected is the rights holder's ability to maintain copyright. A copyright that is kept by the content creator gets the exact same protection as one that is transferred.

In fact, content creators in the US can file to reclaim their copyrights 35 years after publication, if the work was created after 1978 and certain other conditions are met.

And those before 1978? Can they get reclaimed? And what about all those creators whose work has been adjudged to be "work for hire". Do they get anything? Or get it back after 35 years?

And note: 1978 + 35 = 2013. Any bet that MPAA/RIAA might want to ...ahem...extend the 35 year reclaim? (They keep extending everything else in copyright to hang on to the properties...)

In other works, if you have negotiation power, you will get residuals - maybe. (See the Canadian suit about royalties deliberately not being paid by the RIAA members for over 20 years...) Otherwise the middle man keeps them all. For as long as they can extend the copyright...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by teh603

Last time I was able to check out a book thru interlibrary, it didn't cost me a cent as long as I got it back on time.

Not living within the city limits, the only way I could get access to some of the more entertaining books was that way, because the city library kept denying my library card application. Never mind the fact that the city surrounded me on all four sides. If I'd had to pay for that, the parents would've probably nixed it.

When I moved to the area, I did have to pay for my library card because the small subdivision I was in was juuuust outside city limits, so I wasn't taxed for library use. I had to pay 15 dollars a year and then 20 a year. Eventually that was rolled into a water tax and I now pay 6 dollars a month for the library use. Some libraries don't have an ILL fee; some do. The Austin library (right next to mine) doesn't so long as they get the books from their MUCH larger group of libraries. The 2.50 basically covers the cost of the library mailing the book to/from.

It's still the best deal going. The only inconvenience is that the book has to go back when it has to go back and I can't re-check it. So that means getting it read or the 2.50 is a waste. But I can live with that. It's still a pretty darn good bargain.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

When I moved to the area, I did have to pay for my library card because the small subdivision I was in was juuuust outside city limits, so I wasn't taxed for library use. I had to pay 15 dollars a year and then 20 a year. Eventually that was rolled into a water tax and I now pay 6 dollars a month for the library use. Some libraries don't have an ILL fee; some do. The Austin library (right next to mine) doesn't so long as they get the books from their MUCH larger group of libraries. The 2.50 basically covers the cost of the library mailing the book to/from.

It's still the best deal going. The only inconvenience is that the book has to go back when it has to go back and I can't re-check it. So that means getting it read or the 2.50 is a waste. But I can live with that. It's still a pretty darn good bargain.

My parents were cheapskates, and the city library really didn't like us folks who live "out in the county." They still don't really like us, but it'd look bad if they cancelled the current program that lets kids who go to school in the city get city cards.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ficbot

To me, it's not an issue of engaging in this action or that one in order to make the work available for free to readers. It's about freeing it up for innovation by others as part of our shared cultural heritage. For instance, Gregory Maguire could not have written Wicked if he was not able to draw upon the public domain classic Wizard of Oz.

Sure he could have. He would have just had to pay for the rights. Like Peter Jackson (or whoever) did for the LOTR movies. People produce derivative works of in-copyright works *all the time*. James Bond movies. Star Trek novels. The Avengers. Star Wars chess sets (suggesting that it's not always a good idea).

[Kumabjorn]

Something I'm a little confused about.

There are a lot of CDs out there with title like "80's Ultimate Hit Collection" or "200 Elvis Hits" or "Latin Dance Gems", usually several CDs with lots and lots of songs for a very reasonable price if you are into that sort of thing. I'm assuming those record companies can do that because the songs are no longer in copyright. However, in many cases the songs don't seem to be more than 20 or 30 years old. How does that work?

And if they can do it with music, why isn't it done with books? At least not to the same extent. Yes, I know you can buy something like a "Complete Dickens" but it is not like you can purcchase "Ten Best Thrillers of the 80's".

[HarryT]

They're certainly in copyright; whoever makes the CD has paid for the rights. You'll notice that these "Greatest Hits of the 60s" type CDs never include songs by the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc; that's because buying the rights to them is too expensive.

[Kumabjorn]

So those rights are being sold on the cheap then? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell the records at those prices, right?

Still goes back to the question about books. Why don't we see the same kind of offerings for printed material (or in eBook format) as we see for music? If it is successful for one kind of media, why wouldn't that concept work for other media?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Phogg

However, the fact that one can not with anything like a strait face try to make the entreaties not match the dictionary definitions of begging and pleading ... DOES make it beggging and pleading.

What dictionary might that be? What Wikipedia does isn't begging. Beggars don't offer anything in exchange. Wikipedia does. They provide a service that millions of people use, and pay for it with donations. Just because some people don't like Wikipedia's requests for donations doesn't make it begging. Only by equivocating can you call it begging.

[HarryT]

There's probably less demand for them. The number of people who'd want to buy a bundle of 10 books is very limited, I suspect. We at MR would, but we don't represent the typical consumer.

[Billi]

First. You have this in books too. For instance, every year around Christmas you can buy some sampler with topic related short stories in Germany. And they do contain living or dead authors whose works are still copyright protected.

Second. I would guess that this is more an economical or practical decision. The "Ten Best Thrillers of the 80's" that you wish to see would be a book as big as around 3.000 pages. I am assuming that you will find less buyers for it than for the ten single books. But with short stories it happens quite often.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

So those rights are being sold on the cheap then? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell the records at those prices, right?

Still goes back to the question about books. Why don't we see the same kind of offerings for printed material (or in eBook format) as we see for music? If it is successful for one kind of media, why wouldn't that concept work for other media?

There was a time when there was a site that sold CD's of older books. The unfortunate truth is though that they apparently were selling CD's of ebooks that they didn't have the rights to and so they were successfully sued. They had to take a lot of content down I understand and now Munsey's (once called BlackMask Online or at least the name directs there now) only deals in stuff that is known to be out of copyright. Conde Nast Corp. claims to own copyright on a lot of older stuff (they're the ones who sued BlackMask) and they don't share at reasonable prices when they do share anything (IMO). They claim to own a lot of the Old Time Radio programs and in the past were charging $40.00 or more (I think) for CD's that just hold a few episodes each. Of course they claim to have bought them from someone else who bought them from someone else or something. It's really quite sad actually because it was the efforts of fans that kept the media viable in the first place. Anyway that's why there aren't a lot of CD's or DVD's of old books etc. that are no longer in print. Human greed. Either they don't want the books in print or they want too much to allow them to be back in print even via ebooks. And of course there is the copyright law which varies in length depending on what country you are in as well.

[HarryT]

Conde Nast bought Smith and Street; that's how they gained ownership of a lot of the old pulp stuff (and the fact that they really do own it is not in dispute).

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Billi

First. You have this in books too. For instance, every year around Christmas you can buy some sampler with topic related short stories in Germany. And they do contain living or dead authors whose works are still copyright protected.

Second. I would guess that this is more an economical or practical decision. The "Ten Best Thrillers of the 80's" that you wish to see would be a book as big as around 3.000 pages. I am assuming that you will find less buyers for it than for the ten single books. But with short stories it happens quite often.

I was thinking more in terms of a boxed set. Like ten books inside a boxed container, something similar to how CDs are sold.

Interesting to see that the attempt was made using CDs and digital format even for books. Someone has obviously thought of this as a viable way to distribute a collection of books.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I was thinking more in terms of a boxed set. Like ten books inside a boxed container, something similar to how CDs are sold.

Yes, that's what I had in mind too. And I have my doubts that this is an economically sound idea.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Billi

Second. I would guess that this is more an economical or practical decision. The "Ten Best Thrillers of the 80's" that you wish to see would be a book as big as around 3.000 pages. I am assuming that you will find less buyers for it than for the ten single books. But with short stories it happens quite often.

Guess I misunderstood you then.