Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 31, July 1998, Robert E. Jones, III, <rjones[_at_]robjob.com> wrote:
>
> 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 the 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 th epublishing
> 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)

Oh yeah? Do you have any idea how hard it can be to find out of print books promptly, while you're writing a book or an article? I know that some search services mark up the cost by 200-300%. In one instance, I paid $85 for a book that cost the search service about $20. (Don't ask me how I know, but I know.)

The original author, of course, if living, gets nothing from used sales.

We must find ways to improve the availability of books and provide payment to the authors.

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Tue Aug 04 1998 - 13:17:11 GMT