The question is irrelevant in relation to the Library of Congress which, by law, must recieve on free copy of every book published in the United States.
Really? I know some publishers who will be very unhappy to hear this.
As someone who works on the business side of a children’s publisher, I can try to answer the first question in the OP. (Disclaimer: my experience is limited to the few publishers I have experience with).
Discounts that libraries receive will vary depending on who they order from, but they are usually in the range of 25% to 35% off of the cover price. The most common places libraries get books (or at least get the books that my company publishes) are:
Direct from the publisher. We sell to libraries at 30% off the cover price. They are the same books that we sell to bookstores, shipped out of the same warehouse, etc.
From wholesalers like Baker & Taylor, Ingram, etc. We sell to the wholesalers at standard wholesale discounts (about 50% off cover price is normal) and they in turn sell to libraries. The final discount to the library can vary depending on the service they have from the wholesaler (some wholesalers will do collection development service and things like that for the library).
From book rebinders like Follett or Demco. We sell either paperback books or F&Gs (folded and gathered galleys) to them and they rebind them into durable hardcovers. I’m not sure what the libraries pay for rebound books though, so I can’t help you there.
The Library of Congress donation requirement has pretty much been the case since the establishment of that institution.
And the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress.
However, the Library of Congress does not add everything it receives to its collection. You can’t write some horrible piece of tripe and hope to have it added to the Library of Congress just because you filled out a copyright registration form. The Library can just take the item and toss it in the garbage if it wants.
I see. So essentially, when I send my final copy of a work to be copyrighted, it’s essentially gone to the LoC? If they decide to put it on the shelves is their perogative, but do they then just use the copy that was sent for the copyrighting (IIRC, it was only one copy that is to be sent)?
Libraries + copy machines = Canadian descision that it ismpossible to prove that p2p programs should get oulawed. I don’t see how anti-sharing laws can weasel out of this line of reason.
Cite:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1080754657038_76163857///?hub=TopStories
Music industry loses in downloading case
CTV.ca News Staff
Updated: Wed. Mar. 31 2004 11:32 PM ET
Canada’s music industry can’t force Internet service providers to identify online music sharers, a Federal Court judge has ruled.
The music companies represented by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, had identified 29 people who had traded music online using services like Kazaa, but they knew them only by their online nicknames.
They wanted the Internet service companies such as Sympatico, Rogers and Shaw to give them the identities of the individuals, so they could sue them for copyright infringement.
But they didn’t get it, so the music companies can’t yet proceed with their lawsuits.
Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled the music companies had not provided enough evidence that any copyright infringement had occurred and compared downloading and uploading music to using a photocopy machine in a library.
"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service,’’ von Finckenstein wrote.
"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings.
“They merely placed personal copies onto shared directories on their computers which were accessible by other computer users via an online download service.”
As a result, using an online download service for personal use does not amount to copyright infringement in Canada, at least for now, CTV’s David Akin said.
That is quite different from similar rulings in the United States, where the music industry has sued 1,977 people since last fall. It has reached out-of-court settlements in around 400 cases.
Some lawyers were saying the music industry might have hurt its case through legal sloppiness, Akin said.
“They really didn’t have their t’s crossed and their i’s dotted. They would likely go back and assemble the evidence the judge said was missing. The judge said clearly there are some tests that have to be met, and the record industry failed to meet those tests.”
Once they do that, the industry can resubmit its case. Until then, Canadian online music traders are free to keep swapping songs, Akin said.
The CRIA is vowing to carry on the fight. Association lawyer Richard Pfohl says the group will likely appeal the decision.
Peter Bissonnette, president of Shaw Communications, was delighted with the ruling. His company Shaw had argued privacy legislation should protect the identities of its clients.
"We are very, very pleased and I’m sure our customers are as well,’’ he said. “We have obligations to protect the privacy of our customers. We’ve always taken that approach.”
About this Library of Congress free copy requirement…
When I was younger, I wrote a few books through my school’s Young Authors program. For each book, with my mom’s assistance, I made a handful of copies, typewritten and bound in cardboard covers. I did not bother to register copyright for them, but under the law, they are copyrighted, and I did include a copyright notice in each of them. Unsurprisingly, I did not send a copy of any of them to the LoC.
Now, obviously, the Feds aren’t going to go after a seventh-grader who neglected to send copies to the LoC, and if I had, they probably wouldn’t have kept it. But technically speaking, was I obligated to? Would the fact that I never registered copyright have a bearing? And if I was in fact obligated to and neglected to send them a copy, what consequences would I face?
It is my understanding that some libraries also do this themselves. Is this correct?
My understanding (without a cite, but I’m sure that someone who wants to prove me wrong will find one) is that, as you mentioned, a work is automatically copyrighted when it is created, and that filing with the LoC is only in the nature of a registration, not a legal requirement to secure a copyright.
The registration can establish the priority of a claim, which can be helpful in legal disputes. So if the neighborhood bully claims that he wrote “your” books, you may regret that you didn’t fill out the form.
On a not entirely unrelated subject, if you send in the form, but not the copies, the Copyright Office will send you a form letter saying your application isn’t complete. (I have personal experience with this.)
But otherwise, there are no consequences of failing to register or send the copies. You don’t have to worry about the infamous LoC jack-booted thugs breaking down your door shouting, “Where’s our free copy?”
Interesting question. I was going to say that they’re probably legally required to keep all submissions, but then I began to consider the vast quantities of dreck that must be copyrighted every day. I wonder if the LoC has developed a disposal policy.
IIRC that was quite some time ago. New release wholesale prices to video stores (for rental movies) are a fraction of what they used to be.
I do not understand this. From what had been said in this thread so far:
- It is OK for someone to lend out a book to as many people they want without infringing copyright.
- Copyright is all about copying.
But copyright also applies to screenings of film. I am in breach of copyright if I screen a movie to the public without permission. No copying there.
Reading a book in public would be an infringement as well. How is that different from letting the public read that same book themselves, as a library does? Parallel versus serial communication of the same information, both without copying.
Playing music to the public is in breach of copyright. What about a playing music at a party outside the home (eg beach party or work party)? Is that not a breach? No copying there.
I am confused.
Libraries contract out their binding. Usually paperback books that come with a hard binding on them come that way from the vendor. But some titles can be sent out after the fact.
Are you charging people to see the film or listen to the music? The restrictions are on public performances for money for the most part.
When I worked at Blockbuster, we paid around $100 for any title that was NOT available for sale. For example, when the “South Park” movie came out it was only made available to video stores, at $100 a copy. Later, it was released as a sell through item.
Any video that was released as a sell through item at the same time as it was made available for rent cost the video store as much (or less) than Joe Blow would pay for it.
You do not need to charge money to be in breach of copyright. At least that is the case in Australia. I thought Aust. just copies (with permission) the USA copyright legislation.