Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

COPYRIGHT TERM On 27 Aug 1998, Michael Bradley <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >
> > In fact, it has already been argued persuasively in this regard
> > that opening up the potential for publication by bringing works into
> > the public domain at a *earlier* stage than life + 50 is much more
> > likely to result in more titles becoming available to the public
> > than by extending the term of protection still further!
>
> If you mean it's been argued on this list, all that I recall is a
> report that when a certain classic US novel (I forget which one) went
> into the public domain, several publishers issued new editions. But the
> same report said that the original publisher's sales dropped in half.
> So all that shows is the profits from publishing the work were spread
> around, not that the overall number of copies sold increased.

I am not familiar with this report, but I have many questions and some disagreement with the above.

I would say the new publishers took a risk and were not guaranteed a profit. Profit is realized only when the last few copies are sold and the money is collected. The new publishers may well have taken a bath in returned books and unsold inventory.

The copyright owner got nothing from the new printings and perhaps lost any claim to income from the original edition.

It is difficult enough for new talent to achieve recognition. When a rare work is a major commercial success, it is discouraging to see it turned out to the public domain while still in print in an authorized edition.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Fri Aug 28 1998 - 15:44:11 GMT