Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 7/30/98, Michael Bradley <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > You've raised some good points. I've meant to say that the publisher's
> > copyright would lapse, and revert to the author.
>
> Ah. So, basically, the proposal is that publishers cannot hold
> copyright to out-of-circulation works, whereas creators can.
>
> Why dincha say so?
>
> I think I could support this.

I know i am jumping into this thread sorta late, but as someone who has worked in the used book and antiquarian industry for 14 years (which provided a great deal of sanity checks during law school), the problem I have with thei proposal is that it seems to be based upon the assumption the finding "Out-of-print" books in the after-market is of such low utility that it is worth it to adjust the law in order to make finding books convenient and easy.

I am somewhat offended by that assuption (insert joking tone of voice here). I have spent 14 years trying to make it convenient and easy for people to find out of print books. In fact, the more I can do that, the more money I can make! And haven't you figured it out that the search is quite often the most pleasureable part of this whole process!!!!! :-)

Beside that fact that such a proposal is a direct assult on my hobby/passion/and hopefully future business, I can tell you from what I know that such a proposal, even if implemented, won't work. And its purely economic. Margins are extremely thin in the publishing industry and publishers run based upon the bottom line. If there is enough demand for a book, they put it back in print. If there isn't, then they don't. If they isn't enough demand for publisher A to justify putting it in print, then its very very difficult to find another publisher who be able to print it. And I believe that publishers would come up with contracts that would still allow them to retain the rights to publish the works, regardless of whether the book is in print or not. For example, i would not put it past the publishing companies to require the authors themselve to put up funding in order to keep the book in print.

I also beleive that this thread seem to miss a valuable point: Unless the author is hired to write the book (story, poem, etc. etc.), publishers usually don't own the copyrights to the work. Oh they may have exclusive contracts to publish it it, nnegotiate movie rights, etc. etc., but they usually don't buy the entire copyrights to the works.

Just my 2 cents (and probably worth less than that)

Rob Jones
<rjones[_at_]robjob.com> Received on Fri Jul 31 1998 - 15:40:57 GMT