Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm a fan of shorter copyright terms, but copyright renewal requirements don't work; they impose a compliance burden on copyrightholders, and then impose another burden when trying to figure out if the copyright is up or not. Organizations simply won't bother with the cost of determining if the copyright has been renewed or not in most cases, and avoid making the book available. The effect, in a lot of cases, is the same as if there was no renewal requirement and simply a longer copyright term.

Really? That system worked fine in the United States for something like 150 years. Fixed terms with renewal actually make it far easier to determine if a book is still under copyright. Lets say I write a book and I wanted it copyrighted. In the United States, I simply contact the Library of Congress and register the book. Then 10 years later (or 14, or 20, or 50 years later), I have to reregister if I want the copyright to continue. When copyright is renewed or registered, require the author to indicate who the rights should devolve to upon their death.

If I am a publisher, it becomes very simple to determine whether a book is still under copyright. I simply contact the Library of Congress and they tell me. If it is under copyright, I know exactly who to contact (and presumably their basic contact info) in order to publish a book.

Under the current system, they first have to determine if the author is alive or dead. If he is dead, when he died, and then they have to track down whoever inherited the rights to the book. This is often a non-trivial task which is why many books are considered orphan works.

--
Bill

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

It's hard for me to think of much land, in any country, that has legally transferred from one owner to another by some non-violent legal process going back to 1512. What I am missing?

There's a hell of a lot of land in Britain that's been in the same family since 1512. It's only 500 years - that's not really a terribly long time as these things go.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's a hell of a lot of land in Britain that's been in the same family since 1512. It's only 500 years - that's not really a terribly long time as these things go.

Well, I think that all depends... There is also an awful lot of land in Britain that does not belong to who it did 500 years ago. And if you go to Ireland, or to parts of Continental Europe, things are even more radically scrambled. And of course in the Americas, essentially none of the land is still in possession of whoever held it 500 years ago.

--
Bill

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Unless you're doing work for hire (in which case, the employer gets the copyright), creating content is not a "line of work." (They also don't have 401(k)'s or employer-sponsored life insurance...)

Property, including ownership of a business or stock, can be inherited.

Independent contractors such as lawyers, small business operators, accountants, consultants etc are in the same position. Books are not property, they are creations.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

However, this is mostly a moot discussion; as Kali Yuga says, L+50 as the Berne convention minimum is not likely to be changed, short of drastic international treaty breakdown.

I'm aware of that, I just thought we were discussing what would be the ideal copyright for the future now that the face of publishing has changed due to the appearance of e-books.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I'm aware of that, I just thought we were discussing what would be the ideal copyright for the future now that the face of publishing has changed due to the appearance of e-books.

I can go with that, although I think ebooks aren't as much the big change as personal copiers--the whole concept of copyright was founded on commercially-viable copies being difficult to make. The law's had problems for half a century; it's just that digital files have pushed those problems front & center.

I like a flat number of years initial copyright, followed by an extension that requires registration. This current system of "everything is copyrighted on publication for L+70," considering that "posted on my blog" counts as "publication," is ridiculous.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Independent contractors such as lawyers, small business operators, accountants, consultants etc are in the same position.

These types of individuals provide services. They don't create content, so they are not comparable to authors etc.

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Books are not property, they are creations.

The law is structured to treat content as "intellectual property." As with so many things in life, it's a legal fiction. Any other structure would be equally artificial.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Fixed terms with renewal actually make it far easier to determine if a book is still under copyright.

That helps, but really it's central registration that would make it easier, since there would be one place to check the copyright.

However, this also winds up disadvantageous to the "little guy" and/or freelancer. The instant you put something into a fixed form, you're protected. No need for a bunch of paperwork or fees, you're protected, period.

Or consider photographers. A pro shooter could easily create 200 images a day, 3 days a week. Good luck filing all the paperwork on 2400 images per month and renewing them all 20 or 40 years later. Even if I can register a collection, that means registering close to 30,000 images per year. Many of those works can in fact hold commercial value for quite some time, and if you're doing stock work you never know what's going to sell. To content creators like this, registration is a huge nightmare.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Under the current system, they first have to determine if the author is alive or dead. If he is dead, when he died, and then they have to track down whoever inherited the rights to the book. This is often a non-trivial task which is why many books are considered orphan works.

At this point you've got several hundred volunteers who are good enough and interested enough to actually track that kind of thing down, and do the best they can to determine if something is in PD. Hence you have large numbers of works newly distributed as PD every year.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

These types of individuals provide services. They don't create content, so they are not comparable to authors etc.

True, and I think that a book provides a service (you license it) not a good (you don't put it on a shelf anymore), it is this shift in format that validates a shift in copyright laws. In reality, I think you are quite right, there will be no dramatic changes in the Bern Convention. Diplomats are not professional contrarians they are professional enablers.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If you had not replicated your own loaf of bread, then when you became hungry you would have had to buy a loaf from him. By copying his bread, you have deprived him of that sale.

"It's embarrassing to see all these writers and musicians and artists bemoaning the fact that art just got this wicked new feature: the ability to be shared without losing access to it in the first place. It's like watching restaurant owners crying down their shirts about the new free lunch machine that's feeding the world's starving people because it'll force them to reconsider their businessmodels. Yes, that's gonna be tricky, but let's not lose sight of the main attraction: free lunches!"

— Cory Doctorow

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's a hell of a lot of land in Britain that's been in the same family since 1512. It's only 500 years - that's not really a terribly long time as these things go.

Some down yer from 1300.

And now it looks like they soon won't be able to water the grass or top up the carp pond....


[ "Drought Orders" - no hosepipes...)

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If you had not replicated your own loaf of bread, then when you became hungry you would have had to buy a loaf from him. By copying his bread, you have deprived him of that sale.

That does not make sense. I still had to use my own resources to "feed" the replicator machine. I feed myself with my own material. I may have replicated a pizza instead. Selecting "bread" from my vast replicator menu has nothing to do with the baker...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That helps, but really it's central registration that would make it easier, since there would be one place to check the copyright.

For people who choose to register their copyrights, in the United States it is called the Library of Congress. Though since the actual term of copyright is so flexible it doesn't help people check current copyright status.

However, this also winds up disadvantageous to the "little guy" and/or freelancer. The instant you put something into a fixed form, you're protected. No need for a bunch of paperwork or fees, you're protected, period.

Provided you can prove the work is your own. Lets say you write a story, and some how or other I get a copy of your story. Lets say I decide to publish it under my own name. Since you didn't register the work, you now have to prove that you wrote the work. Its for reasons like this that you can still register copyrights. And I believe the actual cost is relatively modest.

Or consider photographers. A pro shooter could easily create 200 images a day, 3 days a week. Good luck filing all the paperwork on 2400 images per month and renewing them all 20 or 40 years later. Even if I can register a collection, that means registering close to 30,000 images per year. Many of those works can in fact hold commercial value for quite some time, and if you're doing stock work you never know what's going to sell. To content creators like this, registration is a huge nightmare.

In the age of the internet, when presumably everything can be done via the computer, and the fact that you can register a collection (under United States copyright anyway) meaning that all 30,000 of those images can be registered at the same time, why would this be a nightmare. I am rather sure that the amount of work to register the copyright is going to be far less than the amount of darkroom or computer work that the photographer is going to need to do to get them into publishable form.

At this point you've got several hundred volunteers who are good enough and interested enough to actually track that kind of thing down, and do the best they can to determine if something is in PD. Hence you have large numbers of works newly distributed as PD every year.

I am not talking about works that are in the public domain. Lets say a group of science fiction fans would like to see some old science fiction novels republished (This group exists, they are the New England Science Fiction Association), the biggest hurdle they might face is tracking down all the rights holders to get them to agree to allow them to republish the works.

Works that have marginal commercial value are frankly rarely served well by the current copyright scheme.

--
Bill

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Or if the replicator from Star Trek were a reality: If I make an exact copy of his loaf of bread but he still has his original loaf then nothing was stolen. If I attempt to sell my replicator versions of the bread, then the baker has a valid complaint. If I keep the bread within my own home then it is beyond the scope of the baker (or anyone else) to decide whether I have committed any crimes or broken any laws. This is what seems to be lost on so many. A limited copyright (like 10 years) is okay with me but it does not extend to the walls of my home unless it can be proven I am selling the item for profit...

Replicating something for your own use such as a loaf of bread or a piece of vintage furniture or a solid gold statuette, does bring you a gain in that you don't spend money for the item so have more money at your disposal.

And what happens when you die. Do all items still stay within your home.

It is kind of like saying if I invite someone to dinner and I mug him it is okay because I did it at home. Not the same on many levels but just because you did it at home and kept it at home does not afford any moral or legal justification for any actions.

In todays world your home can be taken away from you if you allow it to fall into extreme disrepair or use it as a base for criminal activities.

Just saying.


Helen

[bgalbrecht]

I don't know about other countries, but in the US, if you own land, you have to pay taxes on it, and even if you will it to someone else, they have to pay taxes on it. If they don't, the state (as in some unit of government) takes it away, and they either keep it or sell it. So if TubeMonkey wants to have permanent copyright, I'm fine with the copyright owner paying a tax and if they don't pay, it goes into public domain. I don't care if Disney's rendition of Snow White never makes it into the public domain, I'm more concerned about the millions of written, musical or video works which would never see the light of day again because there's often no easy way to discover the copyright owner.