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

On 29 Aug 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> 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!

That's not what I mean by "enjoy limited commercial success." That phrase could certainly apply to THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, by Jacques Barzun, published in 1968 and reprinted with a new introduction in 1993 by University of Chicago Press. If it were unavailable in the intervening period, there is no reason why it should have been considered "abandoned." Almost every senior author and established publisher that I know has some work that is not in print but not abandoned. Reprints and new editions constitute a very sizable proportion of each year's production of books.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Sep 01 1998 - 17:48:38 GMT