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

On 28, August 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 1998, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, this was in support of longer copyright periods. Your previous
> > > point was that extending copyright terms was unjustified. I was
> > > providing a context for that justification, which was that by extending
> > > the time a publisher has to recoup his investment, he can offset the
> > > inevitable losses that otherwise would increase the price of the book,
> > > because the time to recoup was so short.
> >
> > Clearly Mr. Scarpitti does not understand how the publishing industry
> > operates. Very, very few titles are kept in print by publishers for
> > the current term of protection (life + 50). A further extension of 20
> > years would do zilch to help a publisher "recoup his investment... [and]
> > offset the inevitable losses that otherwise would increase the price
> > of the book."
>
> Yes, but you have to understand that profits in the later years of
> copyright, just as in early years, are concentrated in a few titles.
> These successes support the overall gambling on many titles that enjoy
> limited commercial success while having intellectual importance.
> Total commercial productivity would be increased by extending the term
> of copyright thus enhancing opportunities for the "blockbusters." The
> protection of copyright also provides encouragement for new printings,
> enlarged editions, etc. of works having "average" commercial success.
>
> For example, the 20-year extension of the U.S. term to 70 years to
> harmonize with the Europeans may be worth $330 million to the holders
> of the Winnie the Pooh copyrights, according to PW 8/17 p. 17.
>
> I think it is fair to say that copyright laws applied to learned works
> must also take into account juvenile books, movies, TV shows, etc.
> etc.
>
> > 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!
>
> Interesting theory. In my experience, when I was publishing high
> quality reprints of learned books and journals, smythe sewn in library
> bindings, the appearance of a cheap paperback or any other edition was
> sufficient to eliminate a PD book from consideration. Even an
> announcement that appeared to be a 'fishing expedition' would deter us.

Mr. Henderson has pointed out exactly why "snooze or lose" (tying copyright to "in print" status) makes sense.

.... profits in the later years of copyright, just as in early years, are concentrated in a few titles. These successes support the overall gambling on many titles that enjoy limited commercial success while having intellectual importance.

Why keep copyright in the ones that "enjoy limited commercial success" if by that he means the ones that are taken out of print? If they are abandoned because they not money makers, let them become public domain, for what little demand there is for them will not support them!

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 Sat Aug 29 1998 - 13:36:40 GMT