Why The 'Missing 20th Century' Of Books Is Even Worse Than It Seems

from the digging-deeper-into-the-numbers dept

There's been quite a bit of chatter lately about some research by Professor Paul Heald from the University of Illinois. Heald recently delivered a seminar on the stagnating effects of extended copyright terms in the U.S., and blogger Eric Crampton immediately called attention to one data-set about books that is particularly telling (found through Slate) which illustrates what The Atlantic has dubbed "The Missing 20th Century". It's the number of titles available from Amazon as new editions (as opposed to used copies) graphed by the decade of original publication:

The source of that massive fall-off at the midpoint is seemingly simple: all books published in the U.S. in 1922 or earlier are in the public domain. What's immediately apparent from this graph is the fact that copyright is limiting the public's access to older works—but why and how, exactly? The answer lies in the reality of what a copyright is really worth, commercially, and how long it retains that value—and it sheds light on another problem with copyright law.

To better understand this, we can look to some earlier study from William Patry in his book Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. For works created between 1923 and 1963, creators or publishers had to register to receive copyright protection for 28 years, and could then renew for another 28. Patry looked at data from 1958/59, and saw that in every medium except film, the majority of creators didn't bother to renew their copyright registrations:

If an author or publisher didn't renew the copyright on a book, it means they didn't think they could make any more money with it. The monopoly of copyright had lost its value—so much so that it was worth less than the time it takes to submit a form. But, as Heald's graph shows us, that doesn't mean the work itself has lost value, because lots of publishers clearly want to publish pre-1923 public domain books. This is something most copyright supporters ignore: entering the public domain can actually renew the value of art, and can (and does) stimulate the economy by allowing others to exploit additional commercial value from a work beyond what was possible under copyright. The commercial usefulness of a monopoly on a book has a shorter shelf-life than the monopoly actually granted by copyright law. Based on Patry's findings, that shelf life is somewhere under 28 years, otherwise more people would have renewed their registration—but copyright lasts much longer than 28 years. Thus you get the giant gulf on Heald's chart: in between the pre-1923 public domain books and the books that are new enough to still be actively sold, there are several decades of titles that are no longer worth anything to their rightsholders, but can't be offered by anyone else because they are still effectively under copyright.

Yes, just effectively—not actually. As you may have noticed, there seems to be a contradiction here: if the majority of copyright registrations went un-renewed, then the majority of books published between 1923 and 1963 have lapsed into the public domain alongside the books from 1922 and earlier, so the drop-off in Heald's chart should be much, much smaller. This is not a conflict in the data, it's a symptom another massive and entirely separate problem with copyright law which I discussed in a recent post: the difficulty of determining a work's status.

The fact is, the majority of 1923-63 books are indeed in the public domain because they weren't renewed, but there's only one way to know this for sure: checking the records held by the Copyright Office. None of the records from that period have been digitized yet, so the only way to check them is by actually going to Washington and visiting the physical card catalogue, or paying a researcher to do it for you. Obviously this added effort and expense drastically limits the appeal of these suddenly-not-so-public domain works—and as the numbers from Amazon demonstrate, it's having a very real effect. Publishers are clearly eager to offer public domain titles, but are only comfortable doing so when the lack of copyright is guaranteed. All those later works are effectively removed from the public domain, preventing economic activity and making them hard for people to obtain.

Now, of course, neither registration nor renewal is required: everyone is granted a copyright on everything they create, lasting until long after their death, despite clear evidence that the value of a commercial monopoly almost always expires in a fraction of that time. Sometime in the future, someone is going to reprise Heald's graph, and that gulf of forgotten works that benefit nobody is going to be a whole lot bigger.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:43am

    This whole situation is absolutely ridiculous. Copy protection shouldn't even last this long to begin with, even if the list of public domain works due to non-renewals were digitized.

    We have two layers of ridiculousness here, not only should all of these works be in the public domain because of their age, but they should have been in the public domain because because their copy protection lengths should have expired a long time ago if it weren't for retroactive extensions (layer two).

    and to add a third layer or ridiculousness, some of these works might be in the public domain if they were created before a certain time period during which a manual extension request was required of them to get an extension and yet we don't have reasonable access to the titles of those works to know which ones are, even though they really should all be in the public domain because A: If it weren't for the retroactive extensions their terms would have expired by now and B: copy protection shouldn't last this long anyways.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:46am

      Re:

      not only should all of these works be in the public domain because of their age and they're not (layer one) *

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:46am

    why must old people have records, why cant they just send it to google books or something

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:47am

    Not surprising, copyright is all about a few greedy people locking up a whole lot of culture. The artists themselves either don't need copyright or they don't need copyright but have been successfully brainwashed by the MAFIAA into believing they need it. The ones that really need copyright are usually the failed ones. Or copyright trolls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      S.Loree, Aug 23rd, 2012 @ 5:25am

      Re:

      I am a writer, and I strongly believe in copyright. I also love Public Domain. I believe almost all creative people believe that copyright equal to life of creator plus 50 years should be sufficient. I do know, however,that I want to keep my works in my family.If there was a happy medium, like my family keeps the rights to the works I have created but grants public use after a certain amount of time.. I dont know. I understand both sides of the coin. Maybe we should be asked upon filing for copyright status if we want our work released to public domain, 50, 75 or 100 years after our deaths... It would be an alternative

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:49am

    That's one theory on what's happening.

    Another, simpler explanation (and the simplest explanation is usually correct) is that every book between 1925 and the first Harry Potter book was garbage and not worth publishing or buying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Donnicton, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:09pm

      Re:

      Statistics backed up with verifiable sources vs. asserted opinions and no citations...

      I wonder what's typically going to win in most circles?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Apr 8th, 2012 @ 5:17am

        Re: Re:

        depressingly often when the circles in question actually include those with the capacity to take meaningful action on the matter at hand, the latter.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:11pm

      Re:

      That's not simpler by any stretch of the imagination.

      That would involve a world-wide epidemic that consumes good authors and render them unable to write well, over a period of 80 years.

      Assuming copyright scares away people by raising the cost/risk of publishing books assumes no actors not in evidence.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Laroquod (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:39pm

      Re:

      An even simpler explanation is that were no books written between 1925 and the first Harry Potter book; obviously since you believe the simplest explanation is correct, you must be forced to believe that then.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 4:55am

      Re:

      Since you are including all of J.R.R Tolkien's works inside that bracket, and excluding Harry Potter, I have to wonder if you are under 25 or just without taste?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:49am

    A picture is worth a thousand words

    When you consider the ability to publish digitally now, that graph should be going up in a a very steep angle through present day. This just goes to show how copyright is not really about encouraging the useful arts but is actually holding it back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:58am

    This just goes to show how copyright is not really about encouraging the useful arts but is actually holding it back.

    What is this "useful arts" nonsense that you speak of? Everyone knows that copyrights are exclusively for the benefit of large corporations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:00pm

    Step it up

    I'm really surprised there isn't an organization of publishers haranguing the Copyright Office to get their archives in order so they have access to a whole new wealth of free content for publication. I may even believe their claims of lost potential sales since NOBODY can access lost works like these.

    (I also can't believe I just spelled 'haranguing' correctly.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bas Grasmayer (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:06pm

    More new books from 1900-1910 alone in Amazon's warehouse, than there are from 1930-1989.

    Not sure what to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kurata, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:07pm

    While we are talking about books, an interesting note is that France is about to force repubishing through numeral means of books that are now unexploited, yet were exploited before 2001.
    While how unexploited is determined, that seemed like something worth talking about though it goes as follow :

    When an exploited book is found, the author is contacted, and has 6 months to say whether or not he wants to allow this republishing.
    If he refuses, he has 2 years to somehow publish it himself.
    If after 6 months, he gave no answer, then it's considered as an allowance. THen he has 6 months to forbid the publishing, only on the grounds that he'd hurt his life or something along those lines.
    Else, they are considered public domains.

    http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/expert/51198/quand-le-droit-vient-opportunement-au -secours-des-fabricants-de-liseuses-numeriques.shtml
    http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/societe/arti cle/suppression-des-droits-d-auteur-113680

    sources, in their original language.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    But every wanna be big selling author aspires to have their work sit unread in library a decade or two after it's published! That way you'll know you were once big, but now you're a has been.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:10pm

    It saddens me to think of great works being locked in a vault somewhere and access limited even though the author is dead. In my opinion, copyright should expire when the content creator dies as they are no longer benefiting from their work, obviously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PlagueSD (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:15pm

      Re:

      Disney does this exact thing. They lock all their movies up in their "vault" only to bring them out for a "limited" time (normally during the holidays) for the buying frenzy...Then back they go to the vault...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Greg (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Ah, the Disney "vault". My coworker and I (we both have kids) have had a few good laughs over that one. I.E. OMG, it's in the "vault"! Wow, there's no way of getting to that Disney flick now! What is a person who wants to see that movie to do? LOL.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        rltomkinson (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 7:56am

        Re: Re:

        Disney was a lot of the reason the laws in the US were changed. They didn't anyone to be able to use images of Steamboat Willy without their consent. If I remember correctly, this all came about just before Steamboat Willy's copyright was about to expire.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:48pm

      Re:

      The big problem with having copyrights end with the author's death is that it creates a perverse incentive for competing publishers to off the author so they can publish the author's works themselves.

      The other problem is how to handle corporate copyrights. Some corporations are pretty much immortal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dionaea (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Which is why 10 to 20 years seems perfectly fair to me. That way no death threats to authors and no issues with the ímmortality of companies. Plus it seems kinda fair that an authors next of kin can profit from the rights for some time should the author drop dead a week after publishing. There's no reason to let several generations afterward profit, but some of these authors have families too you know...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Ed C., Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re:

        "Corporate copyrights" would follow under "work for hire" and thus already have a fixed term.

        Personally, I think all copyrights should have a fixed term. Putting the year someone died in to the equation makes things so much more complicated. What about works credited to more and one person, is the copyright based on the year the last person died? What if an older author adds a grandchild who couldn't yet read, not alone write, as a coauthor just to get a longer copyright and give a big middle finger to the public domain? There seems to be no disincentive for this at all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          ""Corporate copyrights" would follow under "work for hire" and thus already have a fixed term."

          ...which keeps getting extended every time "Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie" approaches the expiration date!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What about works credited to more and one person, is the copyright based on the year the last person died?

          Yes. That's exactly what the statute says.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 1:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          My opinion is that copyrights should be in 15-20 year chunks, renewable by the author (not a corporation) until the author's death. At that point, the copyright transfers to a beneficiary (a family member or the publisher if no family member exists), where it will last until the next scheduled renewal point and then expire.

          This would allow people who prefer copyright protections to retain them, it would eliminate the problems of orphaned works and works remaining unpublished due to profitability concerns, and any problems with determining the length of copyright applicable to a work (renewals would be publicly recorded and easy to work out). It would also eliminate the problems currently seen with allowing corporations to swallow up copyrights and retain them ad infinitum, only allowing those works they wish to be seen to be published.

          "What about works credited to more and one person"

          I would suggest that contracts can be drawn up in such circumstances, with the above being applicable up to the death of the last surviving author. My stipulation would be that copyrights cannot be renewed by a non-living person (i.e. a corporation), nor transferred to somebody else one they have been granted. Given these criteria, the rest would be up to the author(s).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:10pm

      Re:

      "In my opinion, copyright should expire when the content creator dies as they are no longer benefiting from their work, obviously."

      Except, in the case of corporations, the listed "content creator" (the corporation) never dies...it just mutates...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2012 @ 12:40am

        Re: Re:

        I'm not sure a corporation can ever be listed as the creator, since it was a human being who created the work. Even in collaborations, isn't it the names of all creators that are listed?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    G Ette Reele, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    It's about money.

    It's always about money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  

    Fact: I wrote about a similar topic yesterday

    Go figure, yesterday I wrote a blog-post (in Spanish, but I can translate it) about how the public domain has become untrustable: https://azkware.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/por-que-el-dominio-publico-se-ha-vuelto-inconfiable/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    Another aspect to all this is that it locks up massive amounts of art, culture, and information not only from publication and purchase but also from general public access and (specific to my profession) libraries. Works in the public domain are immensely helpful to libraries and their collections--especially when they're digitized and available for free or for very little (as with Project Gutenberg and its free access). Even printed public domain works are often sold for a song. Saves money, gets more things to people who need and want them. These are materials that can and should be made available. But, as usual, instead of being about access and knowledge, it's all about the Almighty Dollar (or at least the Almighty Lawsuit).

    But here's what it comes down to for me: what a shoddy digitization program you've got there, Copyright Office. Shaaaaame! You're a part of the Library of Congress. You should know better. Even out here in Podunk, USA, we've got a better program. Shaaaaaaaaaame!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    This whole piece is just that a PIECE OF SHIT. Trying to explain that copyright is a reason for the lack of books from the 20th century being offered by Amazon is ridiculous. Amazon offers titles that sell. The reason for the fewer titles in the 20th century has little to do with copyright and more to do with popularity. If we were to use your logic (the level of copyright determines the number of titles offered, we should be arguing (based on the graph) that works in the public domain from the early 1800s should be put back under copyright protection because clearly there are far fewer 1800s books than there are even in the 1950s. Take your anti business blog and go to a piracy haven country (just pick a country on the piracy watch list).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:47pm

      Re: Take your anti business blog and go to a piracy haven country

      Yeah. Of Mice and Men and The Grapes of Wrath and As I Lay Dying and Gone with the Wind all suck. No one reads those. Fuck The Good Earth too. And The Big Sleep. And The Hobbit? Who the hell has even heard of that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re: Take your anti business blog and go to a piracy haven country

        And you only know those books because the publishers can still make enough money on them to keep them in circulation. Good luck finding 20th century books that aren't so profitable. What's available is only the tip of the iceberg of what's out there sitting in corporate vaults unseen for decades.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Take your anti business blog and go to a piracy haven country

          "of what's out there sitting in corporate vaults unseen for decades."

          Assuming these corporations even store these books.

          Which is a good point. Why should the public leave it up to corporations to store the works of our cultural heritage and the fruits of the public's unowed monopoly for long enough to eventually make it into the public domain? Why should some corporation get to decide if it wants to store such works long enough and then maybe it'll release them to the public, if it wants, if they ever become public domain.

          Ridiculous. That shouldn't be their decision. Copy protection should never be allowed to last this long, these works should enter the public domain and they should enter into free and widespread circulation without the need for some corporation to approve of it first.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            jupiterkansas (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 8:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Take your anti business blog and go to a piracy haven country

            And then there are content companies that go out of business before the copyrights expire.

            Maybe the copyrights will be bought by another company? Maybe that other company will take care to go through all the holdings to see what they own? Maybe the copyrights will change hands so many times that nobody knows who the real owner is? Maybe the content will languish with no owner at all? Maybe anybody who knew anything about it is dead?

            And yet the content sits there, inaccessible, locked away by copyright law for years and years.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:59pm

      Re:

      I am confused. Are you really trolling or not? I only ask; because, it is so bad you're starting to ping on my sarc meter. Now I don't know whether to refute your shitty arguments or hit the funny button.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 4:01pm

      Re:

      This whole piece is just that a PIECE OF SHIT. Trying to explain that copyright is a reason for the lack of books from the 20th century being offered by Amazon is ridiculous. Amazon offers titles that sell. The reason for the fewer titles in the 20th century has little to do with copyright and more to do with popularity.

      Um. And magically, books published before 1923 have tremendous popularity, and immediately after it aren't popular?

      The fact that the copyright/public domain cutoff line is 1923 has nothing to do with it?

      I'm sorry, but you're calling bullshit on this chart, and then completely ignoring the chart suggests you need to learn (a lot) about what you're talking about.

      If we were to use your logic (the level of copyright determines the number of titles offered, we should be arguing (based on the graph) that works in the public domain from the early 1800s should be put back under copyright protection because clearly there are far fewer 1800s books than there are even in the 1950s. Take your anti business blog and go to a piracy haven country (just pick a country on the piracy watch list).

      No offense, but this statement makes you look like a complete idiot. No one is arguing about the absolute amounts, but the clear boost in public domain works. Are you really going to ignore that whole part of the chart?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 1:42am

      Re:

      "The reason for the fewer titles in the 20th century has little to do with copyright and more to do with popularity."

      So, books from 1910 are insanely popular but nobody wants to read books from 1930? That's your argument? Really?

      Perhaps if they're more popular it's because *they've been published recently*. It's impossible for something to be popular if it's not available to buy! How that's still something you can't comprehend is beyond me, yet here you are advocating blocking the publication of books like you advocate stopping people from buying music and movies. Then you get surprised when they don't sell...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    TimothyAWiseman (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    Not needing registration is good, but the term is too long

    "Now, of course, neither registration nor renewal is required: everyone is granted a copyright on everything they create, lasting until long after their death, despite clear evidence that the value of a commercial monopoly almost always expires in a fraction of that time."

    I personally think it is a good thing that registration is not required. Amoungst other benefits it makes it simple to know that everything new is copyrighted unless explicitly released and, in an era where more is published then ever before, saves a tremendous amount of paperwork for registering.

    With that said, the copyright term is far too long and there is tremendous value in a large public domain. The copyright term should probably be well short of the 28 years mentioned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ed C., Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Not needing registration is good, but the term is too long

      Sorry, but it makes no sense to give all "published" works copyright, regardless of whether the creator wanted it or not. I doubt that most people know, or even care, that their online chatter is copyrighted. Also, the lack of registration makes it nearly impossible to know when a work was first published or by whom! For instance, what if someone 25 years from how wanted to use your very comment in a book about copyright. Tell me exactly how that person could even tell which "Timothy A. Wiseman" wrote it, and contact you for permission?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:16pm

      Re: Not needing registration is good, but the term is too long

      "I personally think it is a good thing that registration is not required. Amoungst other benefits it makes it simple to know that everything new is copyrighted unless explicitly released and, in an era where more is published then ever before, saves a tremendous amount of paperwork for registering."

      And, if someone is interested in reprinting your material, they track the copyrights how, exactly?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Steph, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ - renewal records can be found online. The year to look at is the year the renewal would have been filed (so, 28 years after the initial publication date), and the site above points to sources where digital versions of those renewal records can be found.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:04pm

      Re:

      Those tools are useful, but far from complete, and that still kills the public domain: publishers aren't willing to risk a lawsuit without official confirmation (and according to the copyright office, they don't have official scans of registration docs predating the 70s)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    EEJ, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:02pm

    Can we help?

    Would there be any merit in the public (govt funded or voluntary) donating to accomplish these digitizing efforts, or whatnot? I frequently see techdirt mention suggestions for solving problems that seem simple and yet completely un(der)funded by the country.

    Seemingly, I can understand that for the average person working 9-5, copyright/trademark/patent law may seem like it doesn't have any affect on them; conversely by reading these articles it seems that these "rules" cause major effects on the consumer economy....Is there any organization that I can encourage (by donations or such) to pursue these great ideas?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:42pm

    I'm curious, how are they handling duplicates? Are the discarding them? If not that could be heavily distorting the data, i.e for every version of The Hobbit there are 20 versions of Alice in Wonderland.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:59pm

    If more than 90% of the books published in that period are technically public domain, why aren't publishers rummaging through the catalog to find out which works have been freed up and might be worth a new edition?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:26pm

    From the original postg: "The above chart shows a distribution of 2500 newly printed fiction books selected at random from Amazon's warehouses."

    How representative is a random selection of 2,500 books from the millions of books Amazon offers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeroen Hellingman (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:19pm

    Sourced from Google Books and a scam

    Many of those "new" books offered for sale on Amazon are in fact print-on-demand editions based on Google Books scans of pre-1923 editions, without any additional value, and probably a bad deal, even for the low amount asked for it. Better go to the Internet Archive, locate the book there, and download it for free.

    All those cheap reprints involve another scam. Google Books will delete books, based on a publisher's claim it is still in print, even if it is Public Domain, so now some unscrupulous "publishers" will republish a book, based on Google's scans, then claim it is in print, and thus have it removed from the freely available books in Google (back to snippet view, or worse, completely eliminated).

    Good thing a user "tpb" has copied many of Google's scans to the Internet Archive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2012 @ 12:51am

    I do wonder how digital distribution will tie into this; it makes distribution essentially free, so the value of a commercial monopoly would be retained much, much longer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 3:42am

    I'd like to point out the graph also shows a very staggering drop off after the copyright revision of 1909, which basically took everything and put it into copyright. This was the year the 28 year extension was allowed.

    All because our government, back then, was also duped into believing this was "needed to protect the artists".

    Some things never change and, because we didn't learn from it, history has repeated itself.

    Oh, and it will again. Just watch. That pesky mouse is about to enter the "public domain" again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      mp, Jun 12th, 2012 @ 9:25pm

      Re:

      We should just grab hand grenaids and destroy mpaa headcorters. The Womens suffrerage movement nearly died before they went Spartacus and broke windows and almost murdered people. Violence shoulden't be the answer, too bad that it almost always is.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 22nd, 2012 @ 3:11pm

        Re: Re:

        While I agree that copyright law today is insane, killing people over it is the only thing even more insane.

        In short, fuck you

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Larry L. Edwards, Apr 4th, 2012 @ 6:29am

    How can copyright terms be to long?

    Is everyone becoming a copyist? A copyright owner has supposedly created an original work; it's his baby and he ought be able to treat and care for it just like it was his child and claim ownership forever and beyond. A person looking to make a quick dollar and just hustle off another's labor is the lowest slime and should not be permitted to participate in civilized society.
    The person who lack creative ability should not be in the pursuit of someone else property unless a royalty check is cut that respect the time and effort of the genius of the copyright owner.
    Why prey on the accomplishments of another? If one cannot create his own works; evidently he's pursuing the wrong field of endeavor. Perhaps the field of service, sales, supply or some other area is his natural calling and where they may find their success.
    My copyrighted materials are MINE! I worked and created them for the pleasure of myself, my children, grandchildren and even beyond. It is what it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 6:03am

      Re: How can copyright terms be to long?

      and as long as you keep it within your family and don't publish it, it can remain yours and your children's and your grandchildren's yeah even unto the seventh generation. No one is stopping you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This