US Copyright Office report: Legal Issues in Mass Digitization

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I totally agree, the other ones made more sense. As it stands now, the likelyhood of anyone even knowing of these writers books is slim to none in 120 years and all of the people who cared about them will be dead.

Mickey? Minnie? Goofy? Pluto?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

But by your definition, not allowing you to read a Kindle book you have not bought or borrowed is censorship. That makes no sense.

What exactly should we call the practice of not allowing me to read a Kindle book then???

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Fundamentally, the only thing evident is that mass digitization and dissemination of knowledge is happening. Whether that's good or bad is quite unclear—and largely irrelevant to this (and most) legal discussion.

I don't draw too many lines, but the goodness of knowledge distribution is one of them

[teh603]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I agree. I think current copyright actually HINDERS creativity for the public good. What real reason is there for a best seller to get out and write that next novel? He's still riding fat and high off the one he wrote 10 years ago that just sold the movie rights...

Its not even for people writing books, its because Disney can't stand the thought of people desecrating and defiling Mickey Mouse in all the countless ways he deserves.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What exactly should we call the practice of not allowing me to read a Kindle book then???

A business model. You need a bluray player to play bluray movies, do you call that censorship as well?

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

The biggest issue in mass digitization, IMHO, is the unconscionable lengths to which copyright's been extended. I hoped that the Google Books litigation would bring the problem into focus.

[U.S. example follows but other countries are similar, AFAIK]

The US Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I understand that your thought is that the extension of copyright time is beyond a reasonable amount. However, i would really like to see this addressed in either 1) Congress, or 2) the Markets; and not in court. Either congress could come up with reasonable, but limited protection limits, or we will have enough independent writers that support less aggressive restrictions on their work so that we no longer need to buy from overly restricted publishers.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What exactly should we call the practice of not allowing me to read a Kindle book then???

I think you need some more definition of the type of Kindle book that you expect to read, and how you are kept from reading it. I can sort of understand what you are trying to say, but there are too many complicating factors here.

1) If I publish a Kindle book and require you to pay to read it is that keeping you from reading it?
2) If the military distributes operational orders on a top secret mission to its field teams in Kindle format, should you be able to read it?
3) What about the diary I mentioned earlier in the thread?
4) What if Amazon chooses not to publish a book on child pornography?

Arguably, ebooks are the least censored of all book formats. It used to be that there were many gatekeepers between creators and readers. Publishers had to agree to publish the book, editors at the publishers could edit (censor) the book, and the limited shelf space at retailers meant that they had to choose which books to carry. Amazon, on the other hand, will 'publish' just about any ebook (I doubt they would publish child pornography and maybe not the instructions for making a nuclear bomb) and Amazon leaves it up to the market to decide whether the book will sell.

Most of us are concerned for two reasons. 1) Once we buy a book, we would like to be able to keep the book and format shift it as we change devices. 2) Orphaned works are books that are no longer available, and that have no active author/publisher. These Orphaned works are lost to the world until the copyright finally expired. Furthermore, since they are no longer available, widespread availability doesn't hurt anyone financially. A third concern is the length of the copyright. I list it separately, because its a bit tricky. There is no natural length for a copyright so we could argue infinitely: 1 Day? 1 year? 1 Decade? Life of Creator? Infinity? Many of us think the current term is too long, but I would be happy with the current terms if we could clearly define Orphaned works. I suspect that many books would eventually be Orphaned and released before the final copyright expiration. Perhaps there needs to be a copyright renewal every five years to keep a work from being Orphaned?

Anyway, the point is that I think you are talking about something else. I'm not claiming your opinion is right or wrong, just that it is not what any others are talking about. And that definitions in this area are complex, and you need some clearer definitions before we can really understand your point.

[HansTWN]

For Giggleton the answer always is number 1. He believes only he should get paid and everything else should be free.

Originally Posted by emellaich

1) If I publish a Kindle book and require you to pay to read it is that keeping you from reading it?
2) If the military distributes operational orders on a top secret mission to its field teams in Kindle format, should you be able to read it?
3) What about the diary I mentioned earlier in the thread?
4) What if Amazon chooses not to publish a book on child pornography?

Arguably, ebooks are the least censored of all book formats. It used to be that there were many gatekeepers between creators and readers. Publishers had to agree to publish the book, editors at the publishers could edit (censor) the book, and the limited shelf space at retailers meant that they had to choose which books to carry. Amazon, on the other hand, will 'publish' just about any ebook

To address your initial points:

(1) The clearest answer is: money. With print books, the only restriction is that you couldn't create a copy of the book. Yet you could still pass it on. With electronic media, it is easier to copy than to 'pass on' books. Indeed, the simple act of reading an ebook involves making an implicit copy from permanent storage (e.g. flash memory or a hard drive) into RAM and from RAM into the video chip's memory. With modern systems, these two copies may represent the entire work and can create legal loopholes unless the issue is considered carefully.

(2) and (3) This is, at best, a marginal application of copyright law and has nothing to do with censorship. By marginal application I mean that copyright law can be applied to sue parties that make copies of material that is under copyright (by default). It is not censorship because these materials are not, strictly speaking, published.

(4) This is a quagmire. The best argument against publishing child pornography, in terms of photos and videos and such, is that it is the product of child abuse. As such it should be promptly reported so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted. "Creative works" are a more interesting case because they do not (necessarily) involve child abuse, so many free speech advocates will view blocking such material as censorship. I think that the best argument for censoring "creative works" is to treat it as a form of hate speech. Many free speech advocates won't agree with that interpretation, but society at large will.

On ebooks being the least censored format, I really don't think that's true. The 'Amazon will publish almost anything' bit is really a reflection of self-publishing. And that exists in print as well. The big difference is that Amazon gives 'shelf space' to self published works, and that Amazon is a huge retailer of books. But I think that, in the long term, people will start looking for a reputable publisher's imprint because that filter is a valuable tool for determining the quality of the work. (And, let's face it, if you didn't care about the quality of the work you would just read random websites. Those are the least censored forms of publication.) I would like to think otherwise, because it would be wonderful to judge authors upon merit rather than authority. On the other hand, merit is hard to gauge in Amazon's current publishing model (since it is easy to game).

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by emellaich

I understand that your thought is that the extension of copyright time is beyond a reasonable amount. However, i would really like to see this addressed in either 1) Congress, or 2) the Markets; and not in court. Either congress could come up with reasonable, but limited protection limits, or we will have enough independent writers that support less aggressive restrictions on their work so that we no longer need to buy from overly restricted publishers.

I'd like to see it addressed through 1) Congress or 2) the courts. A Supreme Court ruling that 120 years is unconstitutional would suit me just fine.

Realistically, I don't see either happening. The Google Books lawsuit was an opportunity to bring copyright duration to the public consciousness, and then maybe have it addressed by Congress. Didn't happen. The Supreme Court's recent history is to fawn at the altar of corporations, so nix that route.

I like your notion of the market taking care of the problem on its own, but I don't imagine a sufficient number of influential, independent authors giving up their rights. Some might, but it goes against their own interests. I don't vilify them; it's understandable.

So, what are we left with? Creative content under lock & key until most of it is of little interest.

[Daithi]

The bottom line is that Congress needs to act.

One of the benefits of mass digitization was preservation of orphan works that are no longer in print and which the author gets $0. Unless Congress changes the rules these works will likely be lost to future generations.

Why don't we have a website where we can check the copyright status of a book?
As far as I am concerned the solution to this problem is simple. Congress should have the U.S. Copyright Office create a website where the public can check the status of a work's copyright. Give copyright holders 5 years to register their works into the website, and if they fail to register the book it reverts to the public domain. Every 20 years the copyright holder should have to refile to maintain his copyright, and once 5 years has passed without the copyright being refiled it passes into the public domain.

However, I won't hold my breath for Congress to enact a simple solution.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Daithi

[B]
As far as I am concerned the solution to this problem is simple. Congress should have the U.S. Copyright Office create a website where the public can check the status of a work's copyright. Give copyright holders 5 years to register their works into the website, and if they fail to register the book it reverts to the public domain.

The problem with that, is that copyright isn't limited to books, songs, movies and other commercial publications.

Students' essays are copyrighted. Doodles in school notebooks are copyrighted. Blog posts & forum comments are copyrighted--and unlike the other two, those are "published," distributed for public view. Requiring they be registered would (1) create mass confusion and strife as people who have the resources to post, but not the awareness of registration, got upset that their works would be "stolen" (nevermind that it's not theft if it's legal; they'd *feel* their works could be stolen), and (2) the ones who *are* comfortable w/copyright registration would do so--and the US Copyright Office is not able to keep up with current registrations, much less what they'd have to cope with if tens of thousands of bloggers attempted to register "DailyKos Diaries of SuperPolitico Dude, 2009," 2010, 2011, and a side registration of "SuperPolitico Dude's comments on other people's blogs," assembled in one place without context.

It's a potentially workable solution (requiring registration), but it'd be a nightmare of legislation.

I like Lessig's premise: everything is copyrighted for ~20 years; you have to register to keep it active after that. That lets you have discussions, publish timely works without needing to register them, and you've got a couple of decades to decide if they're commercially viable after that.

We'd need more substantial protections for unpublished works, or at least better-described ones. We'd also need a *definition* of "unpublished;" is a locked-to-only-me blog post published or not? If I share it with a dozen people, is it published? If it's locked to my entire readlist, over a hundred people & changing over time, is that published, or not because it's a restricted audience?

[Daithi]

I forgot to go back and read this forum topic, so I'm a little late in responding.

I think you make some good points Elfwreck. I hadn't considered blog posts, online articles, images, music, etc. Registering all of these would be a nightmare.

I actually think the "copyrighted for ~20 years" followed by registration to extend the copyright sounds like a good idea. The only caveat, which is minor, that I would add is that this mechanism would also apply to works that are currently copyrighted. In other words, I'd like to see the orphaned problem addressed. I'd also like to see a website that the public could use to see if a work has been copyrighted. Lastly, if someone does produce a work and they don't include a date on the work then it should be their responsibility to prove is under ~20 years old if the expiration date comes into question.

I wonder what the chances are that Congress would actually address this problem? Probably pretty slim.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I wonder what the chances are that Congress would actually address this problem? Probably pretty slim.

I want someone who's fluent in PoliticoSpeak to go to Congress and say, "want to make big inroads on the unemployment problem, and herald in an era of creativity and commerce the likes of which have not been seen since the advent of the printing press?

"Remove retroactive copyright extensions and announce that everything published is subject to the length of copyright protection at the date of publication + 56 yrs max; throw everything published before 1955 into the public domain.

"Then reduce copyright protections to the Berne Convention minimums: Life+50, with just 50 years for movies, which will add more public domain materials.

"Watch the internet explode in money as books, films, music and art are produced faster than the copyright office can keep up with the registration requests."

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I want someone who's fluent in PoliticoSpeak to go to Congress and say, "want to make big inroads on the unemployment problem, and herald in an era of creativity and commerce the likes of which have not been seen since the advent of the printing press?

"Remove retroactive copyright extensions and announce that everything published is subject to the length of copyright protection at the date of publication + 56 yrs max; throw everything published before 1955 into the public domain.

"Then reduce copyright protections to the Berne Convention minimums: Life+50, with just 50 years for movies, which will add more public domain materials.

"Watch the internet explode in money as books, films, music and art are produced faster than the copyright office can keep up with the registration requests."

It obviously would be good for readers, but it would destroy jobs. Destroy those jobs that are now supported through sales of the items that would lose protection. Disney is a perfect example. What jobs would be created if their early works were available for free? The only jobs that would create are perhaps at disk burning factories that would knock out $1 DVDs of the movies and could now also sell to the US.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It obviously would be good for readers, but it would destroy jobs. Destroy those jobs that are now supported through sales of the items that would lose protection. Disney is a perfect example. What jobs would be created if their early works were available for free? The only jobs that would create are perhaps at disk burning factories that would knock out $1 DVDs of the movies and could now also sell to the US.

Disney would have to employ creative people to make NEW works, instead of relying on endless sales of old ones.

Also, they'd be free to release "authorized" versions with the official Disney stamp--are parents going to pay $15/dvd for that one, or $3 for the version from some company they've never heard of that might be dubbing their own soundtrack on top of it?

This would allow at least 50 years to profit without unwanted competition from any given work. After that, the original company would have to compete with the open market to make a profit--would have to offer something that other people don't, like better formatting, or extra features.

Disney's older movies are certainly making them a lot of *money*, but I'm not sure they're supporting a lot of *jobs.* If Disney couldn't monopolize profits on their WWII and earlier works, how many jobs would be lost?