Article - 'Harry Potter' among those missing from e-library

[sirbruce]

I also want to make it clear that, regardless of how long copyrights should last, Christopher's work is not "extending" that copyright. The original texts will become public domain when they do; only Christopher's particular additions get their own copyright.

There will be some problem come 2043 when Tolkien's works, even unpublished, become public domain. Technically you'll be free to sell your own copies of The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and so on -- but how can you tell what text is original and what is Chrstopher's? By integrating the works together you can't tell, and you won't be able to get access to the original papers. I anticipate some court battles.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I also want to make it clear that, regardless of how long copyrights should last, Christopher's work is not "extending" that copyright. The original texts will become public domain when they do; only Christopher's particular additions get their own copyright.

There will be some problem come 2043 when Tolkien's works, even unpublished, become public domain. Technically you'll be free to sell your own copies of The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and so on -- but how can you tell what text is original and what is Chrstopher's? By integrating the works together you can't tell, and you won't be able to get access to the original papers. I anticipate some court battles.

By 2043 I anticipate that Copyright, as we know it now, will be gone.

[pdurrant]

If you're referring to the Gowers report, you're right that it came out strongly against extending the copyright on music recordings.

But that hasn't stopped the council of ministers and the EU Parliament approving an extension to 70 years.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Very true. Eg, the UK recently turned down a proposal to extend the 50 year copyright on music performance.

[pdurrant]

I'm in favour of increasing the fixed length and decreasing the variable length.

So something like the longer of 50 years or the lifetime of the author would be my preference.

We used to have roughly that scheme in the UK from around 1840 to 1900. Then we signed up to the Berne convention for lifetime+50. Sigh.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Before I go further: My own income is 100% from writing and I am a parent, so I do have a horse in this race.

I believe that copyright should exist, and that it should be heritable. However I also believe that current copyright terms are too long: I think something like either 42 years fixed or Life+28 would be reasonable, but I may be erring on the side of shortness.

[Sonist]

The reality is, Harry Potter is NOT missing from e-library.

Electronic copies are available all over the place, for free.

The problem is, that the longer an e-version is delayed by JKR and her representatives, the more people, who would have otherwise purchased a legitimate copy, would acquire an "illegitimate" version of the works.

And by the time the HP books are released "officially" in e-book format, there will be little incentive for those who already have "unofficial" copies on their e-readers, to rush and buy them.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I wasn't "bitching" and your tone is innapropriate. I was asking a question as I didn't know near enough about Tolkien (don't like his writing, never have) or how his Estate is run. There are other examples, as in the ones you posted, which show just how much authors copyrights are abused for profit.

Sorry; didn't meant to come across as sharp.

I have no problems with copyright being extended to heirs, especially heirs who are actively working with the copyrighted material rather than just contracting to have it marketed. Even those heirs, however, should have the right to develop some profit--not because "they deserve it," but because the incentive of profit for one's heirs may encourage writing later in life.

I think we agree that copyrights are too often abused by publishers for profit instead of to promote creativity and inspire new works.

[jairizarry]

Well, guys, I may be a little crazy, but I took my used Harry Potter books, cut the pages out of the binding and scanned them with my ScanSnap. This little scanner is great for converting books to ebooks for fair use. Since I scanned all of the Harry Potter books for my Sony Reader (my kids share one of their own) we have collectively read the series about 6 or 7 times (3 readers). However, I'm the first to admit that it is sooo much easier to buy the Twilight books and the Dark Tower already formatted and ready to go.

Bottom line is, if a want a book in ebook format, for my own personal use, I'll scan it if it's now available legally.

With the recent release of the Lord of the Rings, I've taken that set off mine "scan" list and put it on my "wish list."!! Also, I'll get the maps and pictures - Yeah!

Julie

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Sonist

The reality is, Harry Potter is NOT missing from e-library.

Electronic copies are available all over the place, for free.

The problem is, that the longer an e-version is delayed by JKR and her representatives, the more people, who would have otherwise purchased a legitimate copy, would acquire an "illegitimate" version of the works.

And by the time the HP books are released "officially" in e-book format, there will be little incentive for those who already have "unofficial" copies on their e-readers, to rush and buy them.

The scary thing is that for the last several HP books there have been electronic copies available before the physical copies hit the stores. There were organized scanning teams in the earlier time zones who had it completely scanned and available before the midnight release in the later time zones.

Rowling is doing herself no favors by not allowing an official electronic release.

[Elfwreck]

Scanning teams, or sometimes worse. The "carpet edition" of book seven swept the net in the week before Deathly Hallows was released--but I don't think anyone who bothered to get it, didn't also buy a copy (sometimes several) at full price.

They read the early, hard-to-view digital version to avoid spoilers from jerks who bombarded the internet with lists of who died on what page, on the morning it was officially released.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Sonist

The reality is, Harry Potter is NOT missing from e-library.

Electronic copies are available all over the place, for free.

The problem is, that the longer an e-version is delayed by JKR and her representatives, the more people, who would have otherwise purchased a legitimate copy, would acquire an "illegitimate" version of the works.

And by the time the HP books are released "officially" in e-book format, there will be little incentive for those who already have "unofficial" copies on their e-readers, to rush and buy them.

Absolutely true.

[elena]

Originally Posted by jairizarry

Well, guys, I may be a little crazy, but I took my used Harry Potter books, cut the pages out of the binding and scanned them with my ScanSnap.

why did you do that!?
It's quite easy to scan a book without tearing it to pieces

Anyway, it's full of very good OCRed/proofread/well-formatted versions on eMule

[astra]

Originally Posted by elena

Anyway, it's full of very good OCRed/proofread/well-formatted versions on eMule

The only problem is that all really good scans are American versions.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by astra

The only problem is that all really good scans are American versions.

So...? I guess the Brits are just lazier, or less capable, or just too drunk to scan...

Although, I never really understood, why publishers insist on changing original content to comply with local conventions. If someone can't figure out why "colour" is spelled wrong, they should probably stick to TV anyway.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Although, I never really understood, why publishers insist on changing original content to comply with local conventions. If someone can't figure out why "colour" is spelled wrong, they should probably stick to TV anyway.

Presumably they feel that the target audience (young American teenagers) will be more comfortable with "parking lot", "sneakers", and "mail slot" than with the original "car park", "trainers", and "letter box".

I can understand why this done, and it probably does make sense from a commercial perspective, but I have to confess having a sneaking desire to cringe when reading American terms in what it so obviously a book set in the UK. Especially when they make no attempt to "translate" other things, such as "Bonfire Night", which one might expect to be equally "mysterious" to a young American audience.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I can understand why this done, and it probably does make sense from a commercial perspective, but I have to confess having a sneaking desire to cringe when reading American terms in what it so obviously a book set in the UK. Especially when they make no attempt to "translate" other things, such as "Bonfire Night", which one might expect to be equally "mysterious" to a young American audience.

I agree. God forbid that someone should come across a term they don't know and be forced to look it up. Oh the horror; they might actually learn something.