# No surprise, but copyright laws "make books disappear" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 31, 2013, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980 "2013-07-31T10:38:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/41 "2013-08-01T03:02:11Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > Well, if nobody else is going to call you out on this, I guess I’ll have to. > > I have no comment on the rest of your post, but this bit is utter hogwash. Physical objects and non-physical objects have a great many differences. Having a time limit to copyrights is nothing at all like allowing people to occupy a house after a certain length of time. I know you care deeply about this issue and can bring a lot of facts to the discussion, but sentences like that make it hard to take you seriously. This is in fact the heart of the issue. There is very little difference between intellectual property and physical property, both in my opinion and in the opinion of the law. Those who claim that intellectual property is somehow different are the ones I can’t take seriously. You’ll note that this puts a big crimp in any possibility of compromise. > [@tellyworth](#): > > So a book published posthumously earns money for no one but the publisher? > > If an author dies on the day of publication, his family doesn’t see a cent? > > You don’t think there might be a problem with a system that effectively rewards publishers when an author dies? Nothing changes when an author dies. It just means that the estate gets the money due. Publishers don’t make a single cent more than they would otherwise. The real, and enormous, problem is giving others who have no part in the original the money instead of the publisher, the author, or the author’s family. That’s what putting the book into the public domain and allowing anyone to print new editions does and why authors are so heatedly against it. > [@TriPolar](#): > > The number 25 is easy to defend, it was used in another post so I grabbed it. So you’re defending a number put out by someone so ignorant of the subject that they blamed Disney for current copyright? Talk about the blind leading the blind! > [@](#): > > What won’t be fine are eternal copyrights that attempt to put a lock on an exclusive region of human concepts and hold that long past the time such concepts are absorbed into the culture. Of course no such thing as eternal copyrights exist, so making that a part of the discussion is itself a superb straw man. > [@](#): > > There are other problems that are secondary and the definition of a copyright has to avoid allowing exclusive access to works and the creation of artificial value. I have no idea what you think this could mean. The very definition of copyright is the right to control copies. Copyright has no meaning if you take this away. If you want copyright without any rights, you’re going to have a long fight. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/42 "2013-08-01T03:09:45Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I don’t know either. What’s “broken” about the copyright concept that needs to be fixed? Creative works becoming unavailable is the issue I hoped to discuss. It appears to be a legitimate issue not only for books but music. What appears to be happening is that creative works languish until the copyright expires. As pointed out by others, out of print works may be available via used book sellers and podunk libraries but I don’t see how that benefits the creator or effectively serves the audience. In any event, most libraries have limited space and limited-- maybe even declining-- resources and used book shops in my area have gone the way of the candy store. Used book sales are doing well, but that’s due to the online component. > **[The Decline of The Used Bookstore, The Rise of The Used Book Sales - Booksquare](https://booksquare.com/the-decline-of-the-used-bookstore-the-rise-of-the-used-book-sales/)** > > Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’ve heard it all before, and, you know, you’re right. Used book sales still comprise a relatively small piece of the total book sales market. What are we so worried about? It’s going to be fine, it’s better to have readers than... The limits on library resources will presumably also apply to electronic copies of books. They won’t take up shelf space but files do require server space and need maintenance. The interesting thing about ebooks is that they cannot technically go out of print, yet are treated the same as printed ones. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Maybe there should be some adjustment to copyright laws to account for the change? > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > It looks different to me. I have a hard time equating the public’s need for food and medical care with the public’s need for 1970’s spy novels. Nothing you said really answers **Exapno** ’s question that you quoted. Of course there will be differences, it’s an analogy, but I agree with Little Nemo that systems designed primarily to benefit insiders do not best serve the public interest. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Are there examples of such systems that do serve the public interest well? It also appears that the current system does not always benefit the creator, either, at least not beyond the initial print run(s). > [@Leaper](#): > > At least print books don’t have DRM on them that make archiving them difficult/impossible, and the format can still be read a thousand years hence (barring language issues, of course). The lifetime of paperbacks in my experience-- ones that get handled, anyway-- is more like 5 years than 1,000. Maybe ten or twenty, if I had to guess. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/43 "2013-08-01T03:15:36Z")
> [@tellyworth](#): > > So a book published posthumously earns money for no one but the publisher? > > If an author dies on the day of publication, his family doesn’t see a cent? > > You don’t think there might be a problem with a system that effectively rewards publishers when an author dies? Every time I’ve sold some writing I received my check _before_ the date of publication. Traditionally, a novelist received an advance prior to actual publication. This probably doesn’t apply in every case, but you shouldn’t assume that an author dying on the day of publication hasn’t been paid yet. If you want, write in a clause allowing heirs to collect for X years for works published within Y time period of the author’s death to avoid that situation. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/44 "2013-08-01T03:23:38Z")
What books, published in that era, are people clamoring for? What’s this all about? Are we talking about old text books? Old fiction? Old philosophy? What? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/45 "2013-08-01T03:40:02Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > What books, published in that era, are people clamoring for? What’s this all about? > Are we talking about old text books? Old fiction? Old philosophy? What? One large part of the problem is known as [orphan copyrights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States). Everybody agrees that fixing the problem is a Good Idea. Everybody disagrees about any specific fixes. Another large part of the problem are authors who simply don’t want their works to be reprinted against their wishes. An additional part are works published in magazines and newspapers and the myriad of other venues, where nobody knows who really owns the rights. Together, the parts comprise a huge whole. It’s complicated. Also remember that we’ve been talking only about books in this thread. Copyright applies to a zillion forms of art, from music to photography to sculpture to architectural drawings and to all the various forms of electronic composition. Solutions that look good for one type often look much worse for others. The various types of artists disagree on specifics just as much as consumers do. Telling us to junk the system or to apply an easy solution is as meaningless and puerile as calls to do that for the tax code. It won’t happen unless the entire system crashes. And the system won’t: too many people on all sides have a stake in seeing it continued. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/46 "2013-08-01T03:48:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > To be brutally honest, the public interest lies with the readers not the authors. As a general rule, the public reads and doesn’t write - so in striking a balance between what’s best for writers and what’s best for readers, the public interest would tilt the balance towards the readers. . . . There are enough books in the public domain to serve this valid public purpose. There are far more good books out there than anyone could ever read in a lifetime. The public interest in reading a Harry Potter novel is much smaller than J.K. Rowling’s legitimate interest in protecting her property. If the Harry Potter books were the only source of light young-adult entertainment literature, your point would be stronger. You make, in a sense, a Laffer Curve argument, which would be better if we were in a position anywhere close to the upper half of the curve. Since we’re way, way, WAY down toward the bottom of the curve, the argument is weakened. > [@](#): > > That said, the long term public interest of the readers would not be served by screwing over the writers. . . . > > the health system shouldn’t be designed around what’s best for doctors, the legal system shouldn’t be designed around what’s best for lawyers, the education system shouldn’t be designed around what’s best for teachers, the agricultural system shouldn’t be designed around what’s best for farmers, and the financial system shouldn’t be designed around what’s best for investors. . . . But, as you note, it is a bad idea to screw over any of these classes of people. Especially farmers and investors. I like living under a strong economy…and I like to eat. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > That’s probably one of the most convoluted and nonsensical arguments I’ve ever read here (that was intended to make sense). For one thing, you’ve confused and conflated “public interest” with “popular choice.” > > ETA: For one thing, there’s absolutely no basis for even implying that readers have some right to read a writer’s work. . . . It was a bit convoluted, but I think there was some validity to it. A well-read populace is a good thing, just as a well-educated populace is. There really is some overall public good in people having access to books (and music, movies, art, etc.) If there were any real chance of a severe art shortage in the country, then nationalizing art might make some sense. But since there isn’t…there ain’t. Duplicating goods without pay when there isn’t any need is much more difficult to defend. This isn’t stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. This is much more like stealing a box of doughnuts because the rear door to the bakery wasn’t locked. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/47 "2013-08-01T03:51:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Nothing changes when an author dies. It just means that the estate gets the money due. Publishers don’t make a single cent more than they would otherwise. I was responding to Broomstick’s proposal that copyright should end at the author’s death. > [@Broomstick](#): > > If you want, write in a clause allowing heirs to collect for X years for works published within Y time period of the author’s death to avoid that situation. Publisher A signs a contract with John Author to publish his book and pay royalties for 10 years. John Author dies shortly afterwards, and the copyright ends. Publisher A still has to pay royalties, but Publishers B through Z can publish his works without paying a cent. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/48 "2013-08-01T04:13:46Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > The lifetime of paperbacks in my experience-- ones that get handled, anyway-- is more like 5 years than 1,000. Maybe ten or twenty, if I had to guess. Ha! The average lifespan of a paperback is way less than 10 or 20 years. Five sounds pretty OK, but even that seems a little high. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/49 "2013-08-01T04:13:46Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > So you’re defending a number put out by someone so ignorant of the subject that they blamed Disney for current copyright? Talk about the blind leading the blind! I’m not defending the number, I’m defending the principle of representative quantification. The number isn’t the issue here. > [@](#): > > Of course no such thing as eternal copyrights exist, so making that a part of the discussion is itself a superb straw man. No such thing … yet. > [@](#): > > I have no idea what you think this could mean. The very definition of copyright is the right to control copies. Copyright has no meaning if you take this away. If you want copyright without any rights, you’re going to have a long fight. I don’t really have any problem with the principle of copyrights. As usual, the problem is the law and not the principle it’s based on. There won’t be an effort to revise copyright law for the purpose of striking a better balance between the rights of authors and the benefits to society. Instead we’ll empower the publishers to further restrict and profit from society’s access to the material that was intended to benefit them. But don’t worry, the authors will be fine, it will be quite some time before they can figure out a way to do without them. ---
**Author:** ![typoink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@typoink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/typoink)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/50 "2013-08-01T04:16:43Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > The limits on library resources will presumably also apply to electronic copies of books. They won’t take up shelf space but files do require server space and need maintenance. The interesting thing about ebooks is that they cannot technically go out of print, yet are treated the same as printed ones. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Maybe there should be some adjustment to copyright laws to account for the change? Copyright laws will almost certainly adjust at some point to better apply to predominantly digital media. But digitization really is a one-word answer to the main question of out-of-print works. While eBooks DO take up server space, server space is plentiful. Keeping something “in print” in a digital world really means only a few copies (really just one and a few offsite backups) have to exist at any given time to ensure _anybody_ has potential, fast access. Other types of art, like film and videogames, have more challenges to remaining “always in print” due to storage and compatibility concerns, but, in all honestly, digitization really will mean all books available everywhere. And I don’t think it will be too long to get there. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/51 "2013-08-01T08:46:53Z")
The Berne Convention specifies a minimum copyright term of the life of the author plus fifty years. The Sonny Bono copyright extension act of 1998 extended this to life of the author plus seventy years, purportedly under lobbying pressure from Disney. The Bono act also extended copyright for corporate works from 75 years to 120 years from the time of creation or 95 years from the time of first publication, whichever comes first. So if Disney gets the blame for anything, it should be for the fact that the term of copyright is longer in the U.S. than it is in the rest of the world. Recorded music is a different matter. U.S. copyright law didn’t cover sound recordings until 1972. Recordings made before then are covered by common law and individual state laws, and there is no expiration date for any of the protections. The rights to these older recordings can be very hard to track down - someone who wants to reissue an old recording has to figure out who has the rights to it, and often the rights holder doesn’t want to deal with it. A company like Sony doesn’t really care about the problems of some little reissue label. Also, most recording contracts have the artists sign over their copyrights to the record companies. Big-name artists can negotiate their own contracts, but smaller artists don’t have any leverage. This is how the RIAA is evil - not in exploiting the public by charging money for recordings, but in screwing over artists and in locking up parts of our cultural heritage. This is where I think a use-it-or-lose-it doctrine would be helpful in copyright law: copyright in a recording should revert to the original artist if the recording goes unissued for some length of time, and if the original artist is dead, it should go into the public domain. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/52 "2013-08-01T10:28:12Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > The second issue is orphaned works. One big reason why works under copyright aren’t reprinted is that no one knows who owns the copyright. If you die, are there any heirs 20 years later? Who are they, and how do you contact them? That’s a big hurdle. Or if the editorial house who owns the exclusive right goes belly-up, as happened with one book a college teacher of mine brought to class photocopied to give us. He asked us to buy a copy if it ever got printed again (buying one at that time wouldn’t have given the authors anything). ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/53 "2013-08-01T11:03:08Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Never said it was, but I’ve known too many Spaniards. > > I can’t think of how many arguments I’ve read and heard that oh-so-sincerely nod towards copyright and ownership and such and then self-unravel on some variation of “everyone is getting theirs free so I shouldn’t have to pay either” - with not a little sprinkle of “I can’t afford it and I want it and so there.” > > I can make a personal list of ten people I know fairly well who made precisely that arc - bored us to fucking tears about the jackbooted RIAA and evil Microsoft and stinking-whale copyright laws and prattled about open software and free digital libraries and so forth and so on… each and every one of whom went on to “create” a marketable product that they then bored us to tears by complaining about how expensive digital locking and DRM and sales control and the evil Chinese pirates were fucking them out of their rightful pelf. I could list a hundred more by name that I didn’t know personally. You left out that those people will whine about Chinese pirates while in the process of downloading pirated series at work. Thing is, I’ve seen a lot less of that attitude in other countries (mind you, there’s also countries where it’s as bad or worse), it’s not universal; and also, it’s not an attitude that was common just a few decades back. We grew it, we should be able to un-grow it, the question is how. So long as we keep considering he who steals most as the biggest hero, we’ve got a problem, but not just with piracy: with piracy, with bribes, with pre-arranged bidding processes, with bloated-grades schools pouring out useless graduates, with construction bubbles, with pyramid schemes… ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/54 "2013-08-01T13:36:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There are enough books in the public domain to serve this valid public purpose. There are far more good books out there than anyone could ever read in a lifetime. > > […] > > It was a bit convoluted, but I think there was some validity to it. A well-read populace is a good thing, just as a well-educated populace is. There really is some overall public good in people having access to books (and music, movies, art, etc.) Right. In some theoretical return to the early Middle Ages when books were few and only the anointed or lucky got to read them… the notion of copyright might need adjusting. In a world (_humpf… ha-HEM_) _ **In A World** _ where books are almost insanely plentiful and ever-increasing numbers of older but still perfectly valid works are available for a click or two, protecting the creators of new works is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/55 "2013-08-01T14:12:05Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I don’t know either. What’s “broken” about the copyright concept that needs to be fixed? Perhaps you could be enlightened by reading this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kaio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kaio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaio)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/56 "2013-08-01T15:02:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Here we go again with that Disney nonsense. > > Currently, there is a termination right whereby the original author can rescind a deal after 35 years. I would be in favor of a new kind of termination right such that an author would get back control of a work if the publisher takes it out of print for more than one year. I was wondering about this. Now that self-publishing is no longer stigmatized, I could see currently out-of-print books going back into print because the author got tired of the publisher sitting on their hands. Although I had/have no idea what publishing contracts with the Big 5 tend to look like, so maybe an author can’t “take it back” quite so easily. Which is stupid, given that they OWN the damn book. Also, you’d think that, at the very least, publishers would recognize the profit potential of having these books available digitally. Not a lot of overhead in that, and while an older book may not sell like gangbusters, if there’s little cost and at least some sales, they’re still making money. But yes, I’d say that authors should not be bound to a publisher if the publisher is not actually doing their job and publishing the book. Kind of goes to show the balance of power – or what it had been for a long time. If the publisher doesn’t demonstrate that they’re still interested in the book (by, you know, printing and selling it) why should the author be required to not do anything with it themselves? If they don’t WANT it, why should they have RIGHTS to it? This is less about copyright and more about the fundamental reluctance of big business to compensate/deal with the little guy fairly. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/57 "2013-08-01T15:20:58Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Perhaps you could be enlightened by reading this thread. I did, and I’m still not entirely clear on the problem except that some books go out of print and can’t be purchased new any more. That rests on some assumed “right to buy” that is a phantasm of internet-era thinking. Orphaned books are the only real problem I see needing a solution; the rest is accommodating buyers who cry if they’re told no. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/58 "2013-08-01T15:24:44Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > Which is stupid, given that they OWN the damn book. Not always. The cost of a medium-to-large publisher is very often loss of copyright. Having publication rights tied up by publisher inaction should be addressed more clearly and by statute, not individual agreement. (That’s really a form of orphan books.) > [@](#): > > This is less about copyright and more about the fundamental reluctance of big business to compensate/deal with the little guy fairly. Which “little guy” are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/59 "2013-08-01T15:30:33Z")
We have a previously unimaginable amount of expressive content that is accessible in a previously unimaginable manner by a previously unimaginable number of people. The fact that there exist some number of situations in which Person A can’t get access to Specific Work X under exactly the terms and format that Person A prefers does NOT represent a “failure of copyright.” “I want exactly that thing right now in this format at this price” is not a fundamental right. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980/60 "2013-08-01T16:44:40Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Perhaps you could be enlightened by reading this thread. :smack: I’ve read the thread and all I see are knowledgeable people explaining in detail why copyright per se doesn’t need to be fixed (even Tripolar, under all the nonsense, asks only for a change in length) and a much larger group of know-nothings (including Tripolar) making declarative statements with no backing of any kind. That group includes you, BTW. What exactly am I supposed to take away from your “smash it all and start over”? > [@Kaio](#): > > Although I had/have no idea what publishing contracts with the Big 5 tend to look like, so maybe an author can’t “take it back” quite so easily. > > Which is stupid, given that they OWN the damn book. Publishing is a business. It functions like every other business. Once authors have signed contracts with firms, they cannot change or break the contracts at will. Just as publishers cannot do so. Like all industries, there is a huge legal history of what is permissible. Everybody has to play by those rules. There are no provisions for saying “the public good is at stake and therefore your contracts are suddenly void”. Publishing contracts with smaller firms are very similar in kind to those of larger firms because of this legal history, BTW. I realize that as non-signatory to the contracts, readers are not bound by their clauses but if people are going to make this a moral issue, then they are morally bound to understand the issues they are protesting. > [@](#): > > Also, you’d think that, at the very least, publishers would recognize the profit potential of having these books available digitally. Not a lot of overhead in that, and while an older book may not sell like gangbusters, if there’s little cost and at least some sales, they’re still making money. And here comes the lack of understanding again. Ebooks are the future, certainly, but they are causing huge disruptions to the contract nature of the business. The basic question of whether publishers have any rights to publish e-versions of books contracted before the contracts mentioned such rights is unanswered, although there have been huge lawsuits covering more specialized variants, notably [Tasini](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html), a loss for the publishers. Even so, the reality today is that each book and each contract has to be approached, researched, negotiated, and settled individually. We’ll get over this, but it will take decades. > [@](#): > > But yes, I’d say that authors should not be bound to a publisher if the publisher is not actually doing their job and publishing the book. You can say this, but in the real world e-publications makes this 1000 times worse for the author. The standard publishing contract had an out for the author, the out-of-print (OOP) clause. If the book was not being reprinted, or if the book’s sales went to effectively zero, or whatever variant was in the contract, the author could ask for the contract to be terminated. That gave all the control back to the author. Just what you say you want. But an ebook never goes OOP. The point of an electronic system is that all books are always available. Look at the screaming for books that haven’t been published in decades. E-pub destroys the most basic safeguard the author had. Obviously, people have suggested options for ending an e-contract: a time period or a number of downloads or whatever. Each has some value and some huge flaws. The biggest flaw is always that the Internet is forever. Once a book is out there in electronic form it is always out there and potentially infinitely multipliable. We’re still figuring out what exactly this means and how to deal with it, for all the arts not just books, but at present no good answers have popped up. There are no easy answers. An easy answer means you haven’t the foggiest grasp of the issues. There will be answers at some point, but there will also be chaos and disruption for immediate future. This ain’t nothing new. People lived through these periods constantly in the past 150 years as new technologies disrupted everything people knew and thought settled, especially the law. We forget all the earlier disruption and treat each new technology’s crisis as the first one to ever happen. There’s a good dissertation in that. If I can leave you just one takeaway from this thread, it’s that. This is a business. Businesses have been disrupted before and the world survived (though not all the businesses did). Books will survive in better shape if publishing remains a business. The public good is being served very well today, better than ever before, even if we can’t have everything we want for free. And I say that as someone who probably reads and researches more arcane, previously unfindable stuff than all of you put together and wishes every day for twice that amount I can’t find. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-surprise-but-copyright-laws-make-books-disappear/664980.md?page=4)