Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[Worldwalker]

I've never argued in favor of an end to copyrights, though it seems that my comments about their beginning have convinced some people that the issue is binary -- we should either have no copyrights or perpetual copyrights. My argument, however, is that copyrights have not been necessary to allow for writing, and increasingly extended copyrights have not produced equally better writing.

Note: for all examples, I am going to use a person who lives to the Biblical "threescore and ten" (70 years) and a work this person wrote at the age of 30, to make everything equal.

A hundred years ago in the US, copyright was 56 years, in two 28-year terms. If the same work is written today, copyright will last 110 years. That's approximately twice the length of copyright, so we should expect works written today to be, on average, twice as good as works written 100 or more years ago. I'm not seeing that. There are good books written today, certainly, but they're not twice as good as books of 100 or more years ago. Authors don't seem to have gotten any better; good authors are still good, and bad authors are still bad, and the major effect of cheap publishing seems to have been to enable more of the latter to broadcast their books, with commensurate effects on the signal to noise ratio. The good-writing end of the curve has remained relatively the same.

As for the argument that hundred-plus-year copyright is necessary because authors would not write (or write as much) without it, let me ask you this: When you make a financial decision, do you make it with consideration of yourself, and possibly your children? Or do you take into consideration people who will not even be born until after you and your children are dead? Do you choose a career, for example, based on what will be of the greatest benefit to those people you will never see?

We can't use the same rules for copyright that we do for land because copying a book is not like selling land. If I want a patch of land, that is exclusive ownership; nobody else can have an identical patch of land. But if I want a book, everyone in the would could make a copy of it without taking it away from me. This happens all the time; how many other people have exactly the same ebook as you just bought? I can sell a patch of land once, but I can sell a book a hundred or a thousand or a million times. Despite the best efforts of the people who coined the phrase "intellectual property" to try to equate it to real property, it's not. It's a different thing. This was acknowledged by those "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" people when they established a temporary monopoly for works that met that standard.

If anything, intellectual property (despite being a deliberate misnomer) and its owners gets a much better deal than real property. If I make bookcases, my ability to make money from those bookcases ends when my life ends. My heirs might sell off my last few bookcases, but that's it. They have the use of the money I earned from selling bookcases in my lifetime, but they don't inherit some right to be paid every time any bookcase I ever built is sold. So why is it that if I make books, why should my heirs get, in addition to the money I earned from selling books, a right to be paid every time those books are sold? And why should people born a hundred years after I wrote my last book continue to have control over, and income from, that book, when people who were born a hundred years after I built my last bookcase wouldn't have such control?

Authors should have control over their works within their own lifetimes (though personally, the twice 28 years thing would have been good enough). Giving their great-great-grandchildren such control is not necessary for the interests of the author, and it is harmful to the interests of the public.

So why the laws, and the lobbying? Simple: John Doe doesn't care what happens to his writing 100 years in the future; the Disney Corporation does (or, rather, cares about the present status of corporate works from the past). They blow smoke. They talk about "the good of the authors". They have shills and astroturfers and foundations. But it's not about individuals, or about authors, at all. They know that authors are no more concerned about their great-great-grandchildren making money off their books than carpenters are about their great-great-grandchildren making money off their bookcases. But Disney, and those like Disney, want to keep making money off things their corporate ancestors created, and that is what has driven the ever-increasing extension of copyright laws, to the point where "for a limited time" has lost any and all meaning.

Remember: copyright itself is an artificial thing, instituted by legislative decision. The default condition is not perpetual copyright but no copyright. The decision was made to let the camel's nose into the tent, and now the corporations with a major stake in the situation are saying "but the camel has always had the best right to the tent; if it hadn't, would they have let its nose in?" The man clinging to the door as he is being pushed out by the camel is pleading, in vain, that he wanted a compromise, not surrender.

Incidentally, as both a producer and buyer of copyrighted works, I think creation+50 or life of the author, whichever is longer, is entirely enough. The creation+50 would prevent vultures from hanging around dying authors.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

As I said before, the length of time copyright lasts is a totally separate and different issue to the question of whether or not copyright should exist in the first place.

At this point, it looks like copyrights are rolling towards infinite time. Everyone believes that the Disneys of the world will just keep getting them extended. The issue of what is a sensible copyright duration doesn't seem to be important among the lobbyists and lawmakers. If so, the only discussion left is whether copyright, with a practically infinite duration, is good or not. I think this is bad, because many of the people who would support a moderate duration are going to find themselves in the "copyright is not good" camp. This is a good place for the Princess Leia quote: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Yes, idiot American lawyers with no concept of Australian law did contact them.

No, they did not pull the book.

Actually looking at the source rather than what more stupid American commentary says would have told you this in five seconds.

Well, the source you cite says the book was "expunged." There is a comment that it was back online - but the comment is three years later. A lot can happen in three years.

Unlike you, I am pretty confident that the idiot American lawyers knew what they were doing. Reason being that they didn't bother to try to sue PG in the US. What I remember from my civil procedure classes, lo, these many years ago, is enough to lead me to conclude that both as a legal and a practical matter, a lawsuit against PG in the US wouldn't work. They aren't "personally present" in the country, and they have no assets in the country to collect from.

So on to Australia (where freedom's humping bluey, according to Gordon Bok.)

Whether a lawsuit in Australia would have worked, I don't know. My guess is that it would fail, unless there is a treaty between the US & Australia that would change the situation. In the absence of a treaty or some kind of contractual relationship between the parties, no country is going to enforce the laws of some other country.

So it looks to me like the idiotic American lawyers tried the old threatening letter routine, & it worked, at least for a while. If you have any information about how the book got reestablished on the site, please post it. Maybe PG got themselves a lawyer of their own. My letter back to the idiotic American lawyers would have been along the lines of "do you really want to waste time and money suing a non-profit organization without assets half-way around the world on a legal issue you will likely lose, since you are playing in their home court? And if you win, do you think that this is the only hole in the bucket?"

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

She believes the ebooks are an abomination and shouldn't exist, and that books should only be enjoyed on paper. She has the creative control to do that - and also to prohibit the sale of Harry Potter in every conceivable form, should she wish to, for as long as she lives and 70 years after that (in most countries). I believe that's crazy, and people who do create ebooks of Harry Potter and trade them on the Internet, violating copyright, seem to agree, if only unconsciously.

The only reason you think that's "crazy" is because it's crazy.

Putting that aside, the minute she dies, the books get digitized by the heirs - assuming she dies soon. Otherwise, they will have missed the boat, if she thinks these faddish books will stay in print. The Beatles (what remains of them) finally figured out that their music won't survive if it stays on cds, because the kids don't buy cds. They don't buy pbooks either. Ironically, Rowling's opportunity to be remembered in any literary sense is to get her books out in ebook format before it's too late. Mass art has to keep up with technology.

[Worldwalker]

Rowling's books are out in ebook format.

Just not legally.

I'm pretty sure that's not what she wants.

[sadowski]

Even American universities engage in this money-making from off-copyright books.

I found a rare German book from 1918 on Google Books--"copyright under evaluation". The book was offered as reprint by the University of Michigan for $9.99. When it came, it was clearly stated on the cover that "The contents of this book was digitized by Google Books". Thus, there is a clear connection between Michigan University, Google, and the reprint sale...

Another name on the cover was HathiTrust, www.hathitrust.org

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Well, the source you cite says the book was "expunged." There is a comment that it was back online - but the comment is three years later. A lot can happen in three years.

Unlike you, I am pretty confident that the idiot American lawyers knew what they were doing. Reason being that they didn't bother to try to sue PG in the US. What I remember from my civil procedure classes, lo, these many years ago, is enough to lead me to conclude that both as a legal and a practical matter, a lawsuit against PG in the US wouldn't work. They aren't "personally present" in the country, and they have no assets in the country to collect from.

So on to Australia (where freedom's humping bluey, according to Gordon Bok.)

Whether a lawsuit in Australia would have worked, I don't know. My guess is that it would fail, unless there is a treaty between the US & Australia that would change the situation. In the absence of a treaty or some kind of contractual relationship between the parties, no country is going to enforce the laws of some other country.

So it looks to me like the idiotic American lawyers tried the old threatening letter routine, & it worked, at least for a while. If you have any information about how the book got reestablished on the site, please post it. Maybe PG got themselves a lawyer of their own. My letter back to the idiotic American lawyers would have been along the lines of "do you really want to waste time and money suing a non-profit organization without assets half-way around the world on a legal issue you will likely lose, since you are playing in their home court? And if you win, do you think that this is the only hole in the bucket?"

I actually know the person who runs PGA, and have chatted about this. They did try the dumb letter thing, and no, it didn't work ever.

The person in question clearly was not conversant with Australian law.

A good thing to point out to American lawyers in cases like this is loser pays the lot, too. So they'd lose, have to pay opposition costs, probably get made to pay extra for being idiots and wasting the court's time, etc...

[JeremyR]

I was thinking about this and really, why is it that patents for inventions only last for 7 (or 14 if renewed) years? While copyright is now basically forever (or will be thanks to Disney & Co.).

While it's true new inventions (especially drugs) have more of a direct impact on humanity, it's not like any less work went into coming up with them than writing a book. Indeed, it's probably easier writing a book (I know it took abut 4 months to write my first one).

And books (or any media) do affect society, just more on a cultural level. And that's why I think lengthy copyrights can hurt. You'll end up losing a part of your culture in a copyright black hole.

Sure, maybe some big things will be remembered, but they will be tightly controlled and/or completely whored out (see Star Wars for an example). But one of the best ways to learn about an era is to read books written in that era. And with that being cut off at 1922 basically that wipes out 50+ years of history.

Very few books written before 1980 are still in print or in regular libraries. You might be able to track down a copy of a book you've heard about, but no way to browse or research, really (unless you have access to a huge library, but most people don't).

I guess in some cases you could say that the creator's wishes should be respected and the IP not trampled on by exploiters. But in all honesty, that's done by heirs in almost every case. Lord of the Rings is about the only property that hasn't been completely whored out (only slightly, and that was because Tolkien really needed money to pay taxes).

[HarryT]

I am a little puzzled by these "copyright lasts forever" posts. In virtually every country in the world, new material enters the public domain every year (eg, in "life+70" countries, all those books whose authors died during 1940 will enter the public domain on 1st Jan 2011).

Copyright terms are long, but certainly not "eternal".

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

I was thinking about this and really, why is it that patents for inventions only last for 7 (or 14 if renewed) years? While copyright is now basically forever (or will be thanks to Disney & Co.).

It should all last forever. If you create a new drug, then you should have the exclusive rights to it forever.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Very few books written before 1980 are still in print or in regular libraries. You might be able to track down a copy of a book you've heard about, but no way to browse or research, really (unless you have access to a huge library, but most people don't).

I see nothing wrong with that. If a copyright holder wishes to bury his book forever, then that's his right.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am a little puzzled by these "copyright lasts forever" posts. In virtually every country in the world, new material enters the public domain every year (eg, in "life+70" countries, all those books whose authors died during 1940 will enter the public domain on 1st Jan 2011).

Copyright terms are long, but certainly not "eternal".

I believe that these life+70 rules only apply to books published after 1978, at least in the US. The rules are too convoluted for me, but here are a couple of links that might help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act, http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenb...pyright_How-To

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It should all last forever.

With, of course, a slight tax every year to be paid by the copyright holder.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I believe that these life+70 rules only apply to books published after 1978, at least in the US. The rules are too convoluted for me, but here are a couple of links that might help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act, http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenb...pyright_How-To

Okay, I think I'm starting to understand the rules. Prior to 1978, a book was initially copyrighted for 28 years, and it could have an extension of another 28 years if the copyright was re-registered. The rules were changed with the 1978 agreement. Any book that was in the public domain stayed in the public domain (i.e. if it published before 1979-2*28=1923). Any book that was still under copyright in 1978 automatically had copyright extended to 95 years since the date of publication. Any new publications after 1978 automatically got the life+50 year copyright duration (later increased to life+70). So, since 1923, the only books that entered public domain were those published before 1951 that were not re-registered for the second 28 year extension.

So, assuming the rules don't change again beforehand, books published in 1923 that were still under copyright in 1978 will enter public domain in 2018, and books published in 1979 will enter public domain no sooner than 2049.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Soldim

With, of course, a slight tax every year to be paid by the copyright holder.

A tax for what?