Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[crich70]

Helen

Edit: Just curious as to what the big cultural advantageouses are for fan fiction? Nothing against it if it is author approved, but how has it improved the world at large or even your world significantly. You can change my mind you know

Well in the past (before there was copyright law) it helped to create a good deal of what we know today as fiction. I mean how do you think so many stories of Robin Hood & King Arthur got written in the 1st place? Not to mention a lot of the myth stories of ancient Greece among others. Someone came up with the 1st stories and someone else heard them and added their own twist to the story or pondered "why couldn't x do this with this result.."

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That had been in response to your claim of:


Seems pretty ad hominem to me -- you are engaging in a personal attack against anyone who wants shorter copyright, claiming their only reason is because they want to read the latest books for free.

Did that REALLY need an explanation? Did you even look at what hardcastle quoted from you? (Or remember your own words and opinions?)

Sorry for spearing rude although that was not my intent.

I don't think I am personally attacking any individual or even attacking in general. I don't see getting something for nothing as being terrible although it should be done properly whenever possible.

I shall try to refrain from expressing that particular opinion again, as it does seem to upset people and I am sure I have said it more than twice which is repetitive.

I am not sure how copyright stops anyone from practicing using their favorite characters. I was under the impression that it was only publication that was prohibited? Still with so many people saying so often that copyright reduction will benefit society I shall no doubt see a reason that I find valid one of these days.

Have a delightful evening/day.

Helen

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't think I am personally attacking any individual or even attacking in general. I don't see getting something for nothing as being terrible although it should be done properly whenever possible.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of ad hominim. It means criticising an argument not on the merits of the argument but through the motives (or other attributes) of the people putting forward the argument. That is precisely what you were doing, and people were right to point it out.

[Ninjalawyer]

Thanks to this thread, I can now fully relate to Sisyphus.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I have been ignoring this thread due to the urge to write an incredibly rude reply regarding repetitiveness and tedium Not to you of course.

I am not really up on US/UK copyright law and its changes, and while I see nothing wrong with 42-52 years after publication I still stand by my opinion that the current copyright laws do not measurably harm everyone else but the creators/copyright holders.

Sure they cannot use others works as they wish, but how could they use them if they hadn't been written/published. Lot of things are not published which could help society and lot of things are published which could harm society. I see copyright playing a very insignificant role in the overall picture except that it encourages publication. Perhaps you (or someone else) can give me a very long list of works that were suppressed due to copyright violations that would have benefitted society at large greatly.

Helen

Helen, it depends on your definition of "supressed". Any work, that is out of print, currently, and after the the term under which it would have gone into the public domain, I would consider "supressed".

Let me try to express myself a little more clearly. Book "x" published in the US in 1926, would have gone into the public after 56 years or 1983. It was out of print by 1950. After 1982 I would consider it "suppressed", as the owner of the copyright would not print it, but no one else could, due to copyright extension.

Is that clear enough. (I'm not being snarky, I'm just wanting to make certain I'm communicating. I'll try again if it isn't clear.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Let me try to express myself a little more clearly. Book "x" published in the US in 1926, would have gone into the public after 56 years or 1983. It was out of print by 1950. After 1982 I would consider it "suppressed", as the owner of the copyright would not print it, but no one else could, due to copyright extension.

Isn't that why we have libraries? It's unreasonable to suppose that every book will always be kept in print.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Isn't that why we have libraries? It's unreasonable to suppose that every book will always be kept in print.

Libraries throw away books. And the copyright libraries have more an archival function. So I would not say that the libraries task is to keep old books available to readers.

Now with ebooks there is no reason at all not to keep everything in print.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Now with ebooks there is no reason at all not to keep everything in print.

Once a book actually exists as an ebook, then yes, I agree. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily economically viable for a publisher to convert their entire back catalogue to ebook format, and for older books that's really what we're talking about here.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Once a book actually exists as an ebook, then yes, I agree. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily economically viable for a publisher to convert their entire back catalogue to ebook format, and for older books that's really what we're talking about here.

But that is the nub of the issue. The publisher does not see any reason to re-publish their deep backlist. But at the same time, they are actively preventing those who would do it for free, because a penny might leak out that they couldn't get. This is not a call for the end of copyright, but an acknowledgment that after a certain point, non-availability should count as abandonment, enriching the public domain....

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But that is the nub of the issue. The publisher does not see any reason to re-publish their deep backlist. But at the same time, they are actively preventing those who would do it for free, because a penny might leak out that they couldn't get. This is not a call for the end of copyright, but an acknowledgment that after a certain point, non-availability should count as abandonment, enriching the public domain....

It's a worthy goal, but I think the copyright holder (who is generally not the publisher) would say that the book is their property, to publish or not to publish as they see fit. If the copyright holder wants the book to be in print, they are the ones who have the ability to do something about it.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a worthy goal, but I think the copyright holder (who is generally not the publisher) would say that the book is their property, to publish or not to publish as they see fit. If the copyright holder wants the book to be in print, they are the ones who have the ability to do something about it.

Hmmm...from what I have seen, there are quite a few cases where the author would love to publish their backlists in e-format, and the publishers (who are in control of the copyright) are not allowing it...at least this is the impression I've gotten from author blogs that I've read here and there. Am I mistaken? Do most authors have the rights to re-publish their books, but choose not to?

Shari

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by shalym

Am I mistaken? Do most authors have the rights to re-publish their books, but choose not to?

It depends entirely on the publishing contract the author has with the publisher.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...from what I have seen, there are quite a few cases where the author would love to publish their backlists in e-format, and the publishers (who are in control of the copyright) are not allowing it...at least this is the impression I've gotten from author blogs that I've read here and there. Am I mistaken? Do most authors have the rights to re-publish their books, but choose not to?

Shari

That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright; it's the publishing contract that the author has signed with the publisher. If they've locked themselves into an exclusive contract with no escape clause, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

[fjtorres]

It's all a matter of leverage and desperation; industry newcomers are offered contracts that barely let them control the spelling of their name, whereas established authors can conceivably retain control of ebook rights, derivative rights, and even specify hard end dates for the contract.
A lot depends on whether the author has an ip lawyer on their side or a rubber-stamp agent and whether they are willing to walk away from a bad contract.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's all a matter of leverage and desperation; industry newcomers are offered contracts that barely let them control the spelling of their name, whereas established authors can conceivably retain control of ebook rights, derivative rights, and even specify hard end dates for the contract.
A lot depends on whether the author has an ip lawyer on their side or a rubber-stamp agent and whether they are willing to walk away from a bad contract.

That is perfectly true, but my point still stands, that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law.