Buying all your favorites

[pdurrant]

The longest of life or 50 years after publication seems a very fair position. But it's been over 100 years since the UK had that happy situation.

The Berne Convention is the big stumbling block in the way of copyright length reform. But we could at least go back to its minimum of life+50.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The Berne Convention is the big stumbling block in the way of copyright length reform. But we could at least go back to its minimum of life+50.

We have that in Canada, and are fighting to keep it.

[CRussel]

Oh, and to answer the question originally posted, Yes, I'd very much like to get all my favourites in eBook format. I'm well on the way to that, since very few of those favourites are out of print and unavailable. That's a major improvement over as little as 3 years ago, with authors like Margery Allingham becoming generally available.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Oh, and to answer the question originally posted, Yes, I'd very much like to get all my favourites in eBook format. I'm well on the way to that, since very few of those favourites are out of print and unavailable. That's a major improvement over as little as 3 years ago, with authors like Margery Allingham becoming generally available.

And soon more Allingham books will be arriving at Faded Page for us fortunate Canadians!

[Hemmi]

My very favorite keepers I have in ebook and paper form. Just can't let go of the paper copy.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My idea for copyright is that the rights holders should be required to renew it every few years, for a fee--e.g., after an initial fifty-year period, every fifteen years; perhaps with a grace period. That way, if the copyright holders consider a work still valuable, they can keep it out of the public domain, but authors and their estates can decide that they don't want to keep paying a fee for something that isn't benefiting them financially.

The US used to have required renewal to keep copyright in place.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

The US used to have required renewal to keep copyright in place.

Yes, two 28-year terms. But I'd like to see an unlimited number of terms, which would keep a corporation like Disney happy so they could keep copyright on the Mouse forever. But with anything not making money, the rights holders would probably not bother paying a renewal fee, and we'd have a lot more works in the public domain--especially orphan works.

[pdurrant]

There should be better ways to stop corporations interfering with public policy than just giving in to them. But I think any such discussion would have to be in P&R.

[AnotherCat]

I think what many people forget or do not understand is that copyright protection is a right given by legislation. That means that it is a right gifted to the rights holder by the public of the country the legislation is in.

As I see it, when a right is gifted by one party to another there should be respect of that gifting by the party the right is gifted to by them treating it as being a two way street; one does not set out to screw those gifting. In the case of books and video (and to a lesser extent music) rights holders, in general but not all, treat the public with complete disdain. They have bamboozled much of the public and themselves into believing that the public have no rights at all in the matter; that to the extent of the exaggerated abuse that one sees even in these forums, such as calling any public who intentionally (or in some cases even unintentionally) circumvents rights, as being thieves, etc.

I believe that there is much that could be done, but recognize the difficulties enacting changes by any country who remains tied to Convention. I am not going to get into what could be done except for giving one example.

Geo restrictions on the distribution of content by rights holders is in my mind one of the abuses against those who gifted those rights to them. To me it is an abuse to decide who gets ones content if that decision is made on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, country of residence or wealth. In the case of most content the decision as to who gets that content is likely most often based on wealth and country of residence. That is countries who have large and wealthy populations will generate the most revenue and that is at cross purposes with the intent of copyright; although many have been bamboozled into not realizing that.

So, for that example, my view is that geo restrictions on content, including streamed content, should not be allowed. There are those who claim that content is the rights holders and they can impose any restriction they care to and it is not the business of anyone else, but that is being blind to the fact that the rights were actually gifted to the rights holder by those being denied access.

That all said, I respect those rights holders that do see the gifting of rights to them by legislation as being a two way street (for example authors of important books who have made their work electronically available for personal use within the normal copyright term).

[svenlind]

I have (re)bought many of favorites as ebooks.

I have decided to reread Patrick O'Brians Jack Aubrey/Maturin series.
So I bought the lot, 21 books, and the companion books "A Sea of Words" and "Harbors and High Sea".

(This is maybe a case for the "Ebook Buying Addicts' Support Thread" )

I still lack to read the last 2 "Blue at the Mizzen" and "The Final unfinished Voyage".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The longest of life or 50 years after publication seems a very fair position. But it's been over 100 years since the UK had that happy situation.

The Berne Convention is the big stumbling block in the way of copyright length reform. But we could at least go back to its minimum of life+50.

Blame Disney and the corrupt US Government for life+70.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I think what many people forget or do not understand is that copyright protection is a right given by legislation. That means that it is a right gifted to the rights holder by the public of the country the legislation is in.

As I see it, when a right is gifted by one party to another there should be respect of that gifting by the party the right is gifted to by them treating it as being a two way street; one does not set out to screw those gifting. In the case of books and video (and to a lesser extent music) rights holders, in general but not all, treat the public with complete disdain. They have bamboozled much of the public and themselves into believing that the public have no rights at all in the matter; that to the extent of the exaggerated abuse that one sees even in these forums, such as calling any public who intentionally (or in some cases even unintentionally) circumvents rights, as being thieves, etc.

I believe that there is much that could be done, but recognize the difficulties enacting changes by any country who remains tied to Convention. I am not going to get into what could be done except for giving one example.

Geo restrictions on the distribution of content by rights holders is in my mind one of the abuses against those who gifted those rights to them. To me it is an abuse to decide who gets ones content if that decision is made on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, country of residence or wealth. In the case of most content the decision as to who gets that content is likely most often based on wealth and country of residence. That is countries who have large and wealthy populations will generate the most revenue and that is at cross purposes with the intent of copyright; although many have been bamboozled into not realizing that.

So, for that example, my view is that geo restrictions on content, including streamed content, should not be allowed. There are those who claim that content is the rights holders and they can impose any restriction they care to and it is not the business of anyone else, but that is being blind to the fact that the rights were actually gifted to the rights holder by those being denied access.

That all said, I respect those rights holders that do see the gifting of rights to them by legislation as being a two way street (for example authors of important books who have made their work electronically available for personal use within the normal copyright term).

Geo-restrictions is largely an artifact of two things. First, the old business model from when publishing was not world wide, but local. Second, the issue of individual laws. Many online stores are US only because they simply don't want to deal with all the various laws and such in the various countries.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Geo-restrictions is largely an artifact of two things. First, the old business model from when publishing was not world wide, but local. Second, the issue of individual laws. Many online stores are US only because they simply don't want to deal with all the various laws and such in the various countries.

A third element propping up Geo-restrictions is authors getting more by parceling out publication rights compared to selling world wide rights to a single publisher.

The reading public are supposed to accept that the very nature of e-books makes lending impractical. If that is true, the very nature of e-books makes geo-restrictions impractical.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

A third element propping up Geo-restrictions is authors getting more by parceling out publication rights compared to selling world wide rights to a single publisher.

The reading public are supposed to accept that the very nature of e-books makes lending impractical. If that is true, the very nature of e-books makes geo-restrictions impractical.

I doubt that is the case. First, there simply aren't world wide publishers. You might find a publisher who would be willing to handle the English language edition, but frequently you will see different editions for the US and UK, based on the difference in slang. A great example is the Harry Potter books. Another example is Roger Zelazny. The US Kindle store sells English versions, French versions, Spanish versions and German versions. All available in the US and all with different publishers.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I doubt that is the case. First, there simply aren't world wide publishers. You might find a publisher who would be willing to handle the English language edition, but frequently you will see different editions for the US and UK, based on the difference in slang. A great example is the Harry Potter books. Another example is Roger Zelazny. The US Kindle store sells English versions, French versions, Spanish versions and German versions. All available in the US and all with different publishers.

There is nothing about not applying geographic restrictions that prevents splitting publication rights by language.

Your example demonstrates part of the current problem, some US readers have expressed desire to read the British English version of e-books by British English authors.