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

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I see this question of longer vs. shorter terms of protection as indicative of different philosophical approaches to IP. On the one hand there's the idea that the IP "belongs" to its creator and that there must not be any interference in any aspect of said creator's rights and protection. On the other hand, there is the idea that protection (at least after publication) is granted by statute and that there is a quid pro quo for the state apparatus that comes into play to help ensure that creator's rights.

These discussions about term of protection and absolute ownership, etc. may be found in the 18th century debates regarding the Statute of Anne and the older common law "right of copie". I've noted the following before on this list and it may bear repeating at this point. Samuel Johnson, in a letter to a publisher at the height of the debates stated that an author must give up certain "rights" held to be inconvenient to "society" in order to obtain the protection of that society for the author's works. His understanding of such a basic quid pro quo is still in keeping with our treatment of IP other than copyright, such as patents. Protection is granted for a period of time, after which the work becomes available to anyone to exploit, develop further, etc. with no further licencing or remuneration required. If the IP in Winnie the Pooh is worth $330 million, then why isn't it worth that amount to *all* who choose to exploit and further develop products, etc. based on it? Why SHOULD those $330 millions be guaranteed only to the current copyright holders and their licencees?

As for the success of high quality reprints of PD works being threatened by cheap papeback reprints, I must say that libraries would certainly prefer reprints printed on good (acid-free) paper and properly sewn and bound. The cheaper format is much more costly to deal with in the longer run. For individual purchasers, however, the opposite likely is the case. Thus I see two different markets involved and a need for *both* types of publications.

Cheers,

Bernard Katz, Head, Special Collections and Library Development McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph, Guelph ON Canada N1G 2W1 and Chair, Ontario Library Association COpyright Action Committee bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca // (519) 824-4120 X2089 // FAX: (519) 824-6931 Received on Mon Aug 31 1998 - 21:22:07 GMT