Google and Italy deal

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

That may not be enough. The publisher could then just publish the book in ebook form, and sell it (for one day) from their own website every 9 years!

And why exactly would they do that? Do you honestly think a company is going to go to any effort at all to publish an ebook and then sell it for only one day so they can keep the copyright going, then sell it no more in the hopes that they may then be able to get someone for copyright infringement down the track?

Seriously?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And why exactly would they do that? Do you honestly think a company is going to go to any effort at all to publish an ebook and then sell it for only one day so they can keep the copyright going, then sell it no more in the hopes that they may then be able to get someone for copyright infringement down the track?

Seriously?

Cheers,
PKFFW

If there is no demand for a book why not just turn it over to the public domain?

And yet you know that they will not do so.

Is there anyone here that can't make a list of books (that they would like to read) that have not been published in decades?

Is there a great cost to the publisher? Give me a break. They own title to the rights already, so there is no cost there. What is the cost to Google to convert a paper book? Even at $2 to $4 retail, I'm sure that they can make more money than just letting it sit in the dark.

[fugazied]

Well this is pretty incredible. Despite google potentially becoming our overlords, they do some terrific things.

I can't wait to be able to browse some of these works online.

[HorridRedDog]

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon. They all started out as small companies.

But get big enough and you're sure to tick of somebody.

My real beef against them is WHERE'S MINE!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

If there is no demand for a book why not just turn it over to the public domain?

And yet you know that they will not do so.

Is there anyone here that can't make a list of books (that they would like to read) that have not been published in decades?

Is there a great cost to the publisher? Give me a break. They own title to the rights already, so there is no cost there. What is the cost to Google to convert a paper book? Even at $2 to $4 retail, I'm sure that they can make more money than just letting it sit in the dark.

I'm not arguing against any of that. There would be very little cost to produce the majority of ebooks. Probably the only reason publishers do not is laziness and there is nothing forcing them to do so. If an expiry date type arrangement on copyright were to come into effect it would force publishers to produce an ebook or pbook or risk losing their copyright. And I'm sure the could make money from the endeavour.

I just find it amusing that you would think an expiry date type arrangement whereby a work would go into the PD if it is out of print/not for sale for 10 years might not work because publishers would then produce an ebook, sell it for one day each 9 years and then stop selling it all in order to ensure they don't lose the copyright.

If they go to the trouble of producing an ebook, as minimal as that would be, I really don't see them then selling it for a single day and then discontinuing the sale of the book as some sort of plot to ensure the book remains generally unavailable but also still under copyright.

Sometimes I think we can see cloaks and daggers and hidden conspiracies where there aren't any.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[asjogren]

The threat of losing a copyright by "not defending" it via printing or ePublishing could be a great thing for eBooks - either way. If a work is truly abandoned, Project Gutenberg or Google could be interested.

It could be that a copyright holder sees the easiest and cheapest way to "defend" the copyright could be ePublishing.

I really like the idea of amending copyright to require that once published books need to be available for sale as "new" or revert to public domain early given some grace period.

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

....

If they go to the trouble of producing an ebook, as minimal as that would be, I really don't see them then selling it for a single day and then discontinuing the sale of the book as some sort of plot to ensure the book remains generally unavailable but also still under copyright.
....
Cheers,
PKFFW

I'm not saying that they are "plotting" to keep them off the market. I am saying that they MUST protect company assets. I am also saying that they dont see enough of a profit to bother with.

So if they could make a profit on these old books why wouldn't they? Lets try this one:

Big city left with no bookstore

"Barnes & Noble says it closed the Laredo store as part of an overall strategy to shut down the chain of mall-based bookstores. Even though the Laredo store was profitable..."

Back to the old, out of print books. I am saying that the officers of a company are required to protect company assets.

Like Barnes & Noble says:
"Barnes & Noble says it closed the Laredo store as part of an overall strategy to shut down the chain of mall-based bookstores. Even though the Laredo store was profitable, the overall chain was losing money, according to company officials."

Lets see. It makes money, but we'll close it anyway.

My view is that any book that hasn’t been published in the last 20 years should be public domain. I would like it to be 10 years, but that will never happen.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

I'm not saying that they are "plotting" to keep them off the market. I am saying that they MUST protect company assets. I am also saying that they dont see enough of a profit to bother with.

So if they could make a profit on these old books why wouldn't they? Lets try this one:

Big city left with no bookstore

"Barnes & Noble says it closed the Laredo store as part of an overall strategy to shut down the chain of mall-based bookstores. Even though the Laredo store was profitable..."

Back to the old, out of print books. I am saying that the officers of a company are required to protect company assets.

Like Barnes & Noble says:
"Barnes & Noble says it closed the Laredo store as part of an overall strategy to shut down the chain of mall-based bookstores. Even though the Laredo store was profitable, the overall chain was losing money, according to company officials."

Lets see. It makes money, but we'll close it anyway.

My view is that any book that hasn’t been published in the last 20 years should be public domain. I would like it to be 10 years, but that will never happen.

Again, I'm not arguing otherwise on any of the above. It may be true and it may not. Either way, it is of little interest to me.

What interested me was your assertion that a use by date arrangement for copyright, whereby a work would revert to PD if not published for 10 years wouldn't work because publishing companies would then publish an ebook and sell it for one day every 9 years and then stop selling it.

The idea any publishing company would do such a thing is simply laughable and I wondered if you were at all serious in suggesting such a thing.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Again, I'm not arguing otherwise on any of the above. It may be true and it may not. Either way, it is of little interest to me.

What interested me was your assertion that a use by date arrangement for copyright, whereby a work would revert to PD if not published for 10 years wouldn't work because publishing companies would then publish an ebook and sell it for one day every 9 years and then stop selling it.

The idea any publishing company would do such a thing is simply laughable and I wondered if you were at all serious in suggesting such a thing.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Ok. Do you think that the Copywright laws shoud be changed?

If so how?

[doreenjoy]

Not that there is an abundance of facts in this thread, but I feel compelled to point out that publishers don't own the copyright (in 99.9% of cases, at any rate). Authors own the copyright. That's why copyright is tied to the life of the author, not to whether or not a book is in print.

Back to topic --

One of the advantages of this project will be the preservation of historic literature written in the regional dialects of Italy. Many of these works have been disappearing, as few authors nowadays would write in a regional language. There was an attempt a few years ago to preserve literature written in my grandmother's native piemontese, but it never got off the ground.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

Ok. Do you think that the Copywright laws shoud be changed?

If so how?

I've stated on these boards on many occassions my views on copyright.

In brief, yes they should be changed. For starters they should be made much shorter. I'd be happy with "until death or 20 years, whichever is longer". I would also be happy with a straight 20 years. I also think an expiry date type arrangement whereby if the work is not published for 10 years then it automatically returns to the PD, might be a good idea. Further, I think fair use should be protected more.

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Not that there is an abundance of facts in this thread, but I feel compelled to point out that publishers don't own the copyright (in 99.9% of cases, at any rate). Authors own the copyright. That's why copyright is tied to the life of the author, not to whether or not a book is in print.

I(and I suspect everyone else) realise that. I was merely discussing it from a publishing point of view as that was the idea put forward. When I posted "or the publisher would lose their copyright"(or anything similar) I merely meant that the work would lose copyright status and return to the PD, regardless of who owns the copyright.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I've stated on these boards on many occassions my views on copyright.
....
Cheers,
PKFFW

Beg your pardon, sir. But I really don't follow your posts. Else I wouldn't have asked the question.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

.... I also think an expiry date type arrangement whereby if the work is not published for 10 years then it automatically returns to the PD, might be a good idea. Further, I think fair use should be protected more.
....

Cheers,
PKFFW

I don't think that 10 years is realistic. Beneficial to us, yes. Not, however, to the authors.

I could be wrong. But for a book to return to PD it first must have been in the PD. And if it was in the PD in the first place then it can't be withdrawn from PD.

CORRECTION: If a book is illegally or mistakenly placed in PD it would be "removed" from PD.

And doreenjoy is, I think, right.

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Not that there is an abundance of facts in this thread, but I feel compelled to point out that publishers don't own the copyright (in 99.9% of cases, at any rate). Authors own the copyright. That's why copyright is tied to the life of the author, not to whether or not a book is in print.

....

Are there any published writers, or publishers, able to correct me when I say that the copyright holder assigns the right to that copyright for some period of time? And that the published material (book) is itself copyrighted?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

Are there any published writers, or publishers, able to correct me when I say that the copyright holder assigns the right to that copyright for some period of time? And that the published material (book) is itself copyrighted?

Copyright can be assigned to a third party, but publishing isn't (in my knowledge, at least) done that way; the copyright holder simply signs a contract with a publisher, giving that publisher exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the work for a specified period of time. The copyright, however, remains with the author.

If you're asking if a book has a copyright that is distinct from that of the original work, the answer is no. Not unless it's something like a translation, which has its own separate copyright, or unless there's some particular and non-trivial skill involved in the particular presentation of the material, in which case it can have what's called a "typographical copyright", which lasts for 25 years.

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

....

Back to topic --

One of the advantages of this project will be the preservation of historic literature written in the regional dialects of Italy. Many of these works have been disappearing, as few authors nowadays would write in a regional language. There was an attempt a few years ago to preserve literature written in my grandmother's native piemontese, but it never got off the ground.

You're wonderfully correct. I wish that more people understood that modern Italian language came about after the "Italian Wars" (1494 to 1559) and the conquest and occupation of Italy by Napoleon. Even in Mussolini's time there were (and to some degree or another still are) many well defined dialects.

Italy and Greek history needs to be preserved. But then too I also think that latin should.

On a wider note. With the copyright laws keeping books out of the public domain for so long you have to wonder, "Will today’s books have much relevance to children 150 years from today?"

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright can be assigned to a third party, but publishing isn't (in my knowledge, at least) done that way; the copyright holder simply signs a contract with a publisher, giving that publisher exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the work for a specified period of time. The copyright, however, remains with the author.

If you're asking if a book has a copyright that is distinct from that of the original work, the answer is no. Not unless it's something like a translation, which has its own separate copyright, or unless there's some particular and non-trivial skill involved in the particular presentation of the material, in which case it can have what's called a "typographical copyright", which lasts for 25 years.

Thank you, I thought that the book itself was copyrighted too.