Public-Domain Bookmobile Hits the Road

At Belle Haven Elementary School in Palo Alto, right about... *now*, the Internet Archive Bookmobile is starting its ten-day, cross-country trip to the Supreme Court. They're putting the hammer down (itinerary) (blog) to make it to Ohio for the Bookmobile Conference. Then they'll drive into Washington, D.C. on Oct. 8, the day before the nine Justices hear the copyright-extension case Eldred v. Ashcroft. The contraption is a Ford Aerostar with decals, satellite dish, wireless LAN, laptops... and a printer and binder to do on-demand printing of any of the thousands of public domain books on the internet. (The webpage says 20,000 but the decals claim 1,000,000... maybe they have 50 fonts :) Update: 10/01 01:33 GMT by T : Nick Arnett writes "The piece about Belle Haven School's bookmobile put the school in Palo Alto. It's not; it's across the freeway, in a far less wealthy and privileged neighborhood, where access to technology is much less common than in Palo Alto. (I'm on the board of Plugged In, a community technology center in the same area as Belle Haven.)"

Comments

I sincerely hope...

[perrin5]

That this has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. The entire point of the Supreme Court is that they are not swayed by public opinion. That's why, once appointed, the justices are in until they retire. Their only decision making process _should_ be the law.

That said, good for these guys. I am a huge fan of public, attention grabbing demonstrations, plus I like book mobiles.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[CrazyDuke]

In the end, the question is not whether they can be swayed by public opinion, but by corporate dollars.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[stevenbee]

While it may be true that the Court won't be swayed, I find the project to be rather heartening on a humanitarian level; it's all to rare to see a pure celebration of knowledge and the free flow of information in this day and age....

Re:I sincerely hope...

[Angry White Guy]

Where do you think that those wacky laws that are still on the books come from. Do you sincerely think that some politician petitioned a law to allow NYPD officers to bite dogs in Central Park, provided that there was just cause? Or do you think that some cop went in fromt of a judge who was feeling particularly funny and said "The dog bit you? Bite him back next time! Case Dismissed!"

Believing that the courts are infalliable is just as bad as believing that they should not be aware of all facts of the case to make a just decision. The law is an important, but not entire portion of justice. A judge should be allowed to rule in the interests of justice, within the boundaries of the law.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[aengblom]

Wrong. (Mostly)

The Court regularly consults public opinion and does so for a reason. Most notably the court takes into effect "evolving standards of decency." More importantly, the court can only make the most logical argument when it sees and understands all of the possibilities. This is an attempt to explain what's possible.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[Angry White Guy]

No, judges do have the power to make laws, via precident. Even though it is not a law per say, it is still used by lawyers as gospel, usually until it has had a monster snowball effect.

I will agree that the Supreme Court is the most fair in the land, but that does not mean that it is absolutely fair.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[Zordak]

Hi, I'm CrazyDuke, a Slashdot anti-U.S. troll, and I know that anti-government rants are really popular on Slashdot, so I'm going to try to make a witty statement about the Supreme court being owned by corporate interests, even though I have not ever actually read the Constitution or seen how the court works.

How is the Supreme Court swayed by corporate dollars? Short of outright bribery, I am not aware of any vehicle for this. It's not like the justices have to run a re-election campaign in a couple of years. That's the whole point of appointing them for life. Once they're in, they don't owe anybody anything. They are already sitting on the highest court, so they don't have to impress anyone to get another appointment. They don't have to worry about re-election, so no need for financing a campaign. The justices really have no incentive to take a bribe. The prestige of sitting on the Supreme Court far outweighs such a temporary monetary gain, and the justice taking bribes would be quickly impeached once it was discovered. It's a totally brilliant arrangement: A small group of people with very limited power, but extrememly powerful within their limits. They have no original jurisdiction and no capacity to originate law, so they can't take the country by tyrrany, but once something hits their docket and they agree to hear it, their decisions are absolutely binding. There is no one else to appeal to. Since they are basically immune from any kind of external power, they can afford to vote against the most powerful politicians or corporations if they feel it is necessary (granted, they sometimes are swayed more by the potential for setting precedents than the actual merits of a specific case, but even in those cases, they decide to set or not set precdent according to their consciences). The whole point is to provide a final sanity check where the powerful can be stopped when abusing their power. I am no fan of the copyright extension, but if it is upheld, I do not doubt it will be because five of the justices really believe that was the right thing to do. Your smug comment about corporate dollars was ridiculous.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[CrazyDuke]

Hi, I'm Zordak, the purple trollisaur. I have little concept of reality. I think that anyone that questions current state of the US government is automagically an anti-US asshole. My life consists of "I love you, you love me, I'm bent over, get some butt lubbing."

Back to reality, while the Supreme Court can often be a glimmer of sanity in an otherwise greed driven world, they do sometimes bend to interests outside of the constitution and amendments. Bribes are illegal, but gifts and favors are not, especially when no one finds out. I am mearly pointing out that the chance excists that greed can be a desiding factor in this or any case. It did buy these laws in the first place.

Oh, yeah, even though the Supreme Court is the final say, the Legislative and Executive branches can just ignore it's rulings; and they have been known to so. But, what do I know, I never even read the constitution or anything about the supreme court. :P

BTW: I'm only 1/4 Troll. I post my worthless opinion whether you like it or not.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[zapfie]

Hi, I'm Mr. ShutUpBothOfYou. Nice to meetcha.

Re:I sincerely hope...

[evilviper]

It's one thing to be swayed, another to see an example that may counter a claim set forth.

This demonstration could be to public-domain, what the Win98 IE remover was to M$' antitrust case.

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's run behind it and warchalk!

So lemme check and make sure I understand this...

[Gorm the DBA]

They're going to use countless reams of paper to document on hardcopy the information that's been digitized from the original paper copies...

Brilliant...just brilliant!

Hmm.

[loraksus]

I somehow doubt that the justices will be impressed by printouts of ascii porn.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[EvanED]

I don't know about you, I but I wouldn't read a book on a computer screen.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[unicron]

Greenpeace will be sure to flip over their van.

It's an argument, not a poll

[Planesdragon]

Courts should be, and are, swayed by logical opinions and arguments. That's why our legal system is a combative one.

An expression of demand for works in the public domain should be considered by the court, ESSPECIALLY if it's shown that they're kept in print /made avaliable despite no copyright.

The argument for extended copyrights is basically "can't keep them in print if not copywritten," which means that they're largely unavaliable to casual consumers.

Re:It's an argument, not a poll

[theCoder]

You've apparently never battled before the Supreme Court :)

Then I suppose...

[Marxist Commentary]

You have not paid attention to the recent rulings on the federal death penalty. These opinions were explicitly influenced by public opinion.

Re:Then I suppose...

[Stonehand]

...because of the words "cruel and unusual punishment" as explicitly specified in the Constitution. Unusual isn't defined in a vacuum, and therefore they were obliged to take into account outside opinions.

Copyright law is phrased differently; "limited", for instance, doesn't imply "limited according to the attention span of modern bandwidth-crazed channel-switching humanity".

The Future of all Printing

[greenhide]

From what I've heard, this will be the future of *all* printing. With the exception of perennial winners like Stephen King, authors will now have their works digitized. Then people interested in reading their books will go to a printing center where an exact copy of that book can be printed.

The benefits, of course, is that the number of copies printed matches exactly the number of copies purchased. The downside is that many people use hands-on browsing to find books they want, which won't be possible when the books are in digital format.

In regards to this specific campaign, I think that it's hopeful that the Supreme court is making a decision here, because I think they tend to be pretty good about decisions in these areas. It's pretty clear from a legal standpoint what the decision should be. The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights. This law restricts our rights and extends copyright protections to far beyond what their original limitations were. I *don't* think that the bookmobile will have much effect on the Court, but hopefully it will make some of our citizens more aware of just how many new ways corporations are seeking to screw us.

So, here's hoping. *crosses fingers*

Re:The Future of all Printing

[gorilla]

Doesn't need to be digitised for most authors. They provide electronic copy to their publishers. Even for the Slush pile is preferred to be electronic.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[Planesdragon]

The benefits, of course, is that the number of copies printed matches exactly the number of copies purchased.

That's a very, VERY big advantage to a publisher. It means that there's no tax-penalty for large print runs, and thus the incentive to roll out "crappy book of the month" goes away.

Unfortunately...

The downside is that many people use hands-on browsing to find books they want, which won't be possible when the books are in digital format.

That's not the big downside; bookstores could just select a few and print them themselves, if the system works.

The problem is that it's inefficient. Book runs benefit from economy of scale, and "one book runs" may be good for out of print material like Public Domain stuff, but it's not nice as the primary book sale method.

Beat the inefficiency, and I (and all the publishers in the world) would love it. Imagine--instant corrections, no returns... it'd be great!

Re:The Future of all Printing

[michaelggreer]

I am in complete diagreement with everyone here on this issue, I believe. The copyright owners of these works are the writers, who are famously poor (a few exceptions aside). Believe me, as a writer, we are poor. Taking away copyrights from writers will not steal money from "big corporations," who make their money off distribution. Neither do I hope that the future demands digitized books, wherin writers will never make any money ever. I am not sure why all of you are in favor of this. In short, writers are in a very different situation from engineers. Their work is not "information", but art. The copyrights are in their hands, not the publishers. Just because both code and novels contain words do not make them the same.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[LordNimon]

The downside is that many people use hands-on browsing to find books they want, which won't be possible when the books are in digital format.

They can still do that at bookstores. The difference is that the bookstore will only have one copy of the book on display. You then tell the sales person you want to buy that book, and he will print it for you right there. The copy on display remains on display. And since there's only one copy on display, there's more room for different books, so bookstores will have an even greater variety of books on display. It's win/win for everyone.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[greenhide]

I think most of the protesting regarding these recent copyright laws is that they seem to be designed to protect the copyrights not of authors, but rather corporations. These new laws do not, to my understanding, affect the copyrights of any living authors. They merely extend the copyrights, retroactively, of works whose copyright had already expired as well as extending copyrights for some works which have been already copyrighted for over 75 years.

If my understanding of this issue is incorrect, I would love to be informed of this.

I am not certain how authors will not make any money off of digitized books, especially in cases where they are not actually available in digital form (which could lead to copyright infrigement or unfair use), but rather versions in digital form which could be printed on demand. This would only benefit the author, as it means that their book can be made available to anyone anywhere in the world, in *printed* form, for which they will receive royalties.

Finally, I think that most authors don't make much money off of the royalties, but rather off of payments from the publisher. Is this incorrect?

Re:The Future of all Printing

[3ryon]

The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights.

Ah yes, to understand recursion one must first understand recursion.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[iabervon]

Actually, the economy of scale in printing a book run isn't that great, and it's falling as print-on-demand gets better, driven by people going to copy centers to print a dozen of the thing they're holding.

Doing large print runs is inefficient in storage and because you have to move the books to the place they're sold. That's starting to matter more than the actual printing.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[Dannon]

The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights.

Actually, the primary purpose of the Constitution was, in its own words, to form a more perfect Union. In other words, to create a stronger government than the Articles of Confederation provided for.

Back then, though, there was a strong understanding that, when a group sets up a government, they're giving up certain natural rights that they have simply by virtue of being living, breathing human beings. (Whenever you hear a politician talking about 'granting' or 'creating' or 'giving' you rights, be suspicious. Governments can't give rights, they can only take them away.) So, before they signed the contract to join this Union, they wanted certain provisions set out for rights that the new government -wouldn't- take. Hence the first Ten Amendments.

</Constitutional History Nitpick> ;-)

Re:The Future of all Printing

[samael]

I always thought that it was iteration one had to understand in order to understand recursion.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[mttlg]

As several people have said in response to your other post (which looks oddly similar to this one...), you don't agree because you are arguing a different issue. This isn't about getting rid of copyrights; it's about getting rid of unreasonably long copyright terms. This will not change anything for you, unless you manage to live for several decades after you die.

Even if the copyright term was cut way back to just 30 or 40 years, it should not have any effect on you. If you are poor living off of what you write today, how much will it be making you in 40 years? If you are still making a considerable amount of money in 40 years, you probably wouldn't be poor. Either way, copyright beyond this point does little more than restrict public access to this material.

As for the future of digital distribution, I think your vision of it is way off. In the somewhat unreasonable extreme case that there is no possibility of making money from writing, then people will only write if they are willing to give away their work for free, while making a living doing something else. There are already many people, including myself, who do this to some extent. If there is a demand for more than what is available for free, then there will be a market for paid writing. If there is not a demand, then why should some writers make money from something that nobody wants? (Yes, I know there are a lot of parallels to Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA/etc. here.)

So if, in the present situation, there is a demand for paid writing, why are you poor? The problem, as it is in several other content-driven markets, is that the market is saturated. Writing probably has the most saturated market because there are a couple thousand years of written works (in 100 years or so of commonly available printings) to compete with, most of which can be obtained at little or no cost. When you consider all the other forms of entertainment that compete with reading, it's amazing that anyone other than the widely popular authors can make a living at this.

Finally, to take a page from the anti-RIAA/MPAA arguments, just because you have been able to make a living at something, that doesn't mean you should always be able to do so. Markets change, and sometimes you get left behind. The .coms learned this the hard way. Calling your product "art" doesn't make you immune to economic realities.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[Elwood P Dowd]

It's disappointing to see that some writers may have such a poor understanding of the economic effects that get them paid.

When your publisher decides the amount of money they are willing to pay you, the current length of copyright plays no role in their decision whatsoever. There are a number of ways to explain this, and I have time for none of them right now. I might follow up after work.

I would like to suggest that your relative poverty is completely independent of the duration of copyright, so long as it lasts at least 20 years.

Also, you're not going to get very far on a geek new site by denegrating the creativity involved in writing computer code. Computer code is a copyrightable product. Of course some computer code does not require artistic ability, just as some writing requires no artistic ability. Since there is no objective distinction between artistic and inartistic writing/coding, there should be no legal distinction.

You may think lowly of computer code. Do not assume that we do, or that we think lowly of other writings.

Re:The Future of all Printing

[NeoSkandranon]

Book bindings are shoddy enough as it is. the LAST thing we need is some sort of "print on demand" factory having to make them WORSE in the name of speed.

Cute, but silly

[sssmashy]

I think the whole concept of a mobile bookmobile downloading e-books by satellite is cute, but... couldn't they just show the kids how to download the e-books from home? Or, since the books are mostly public-domain classics, why not provide the kids with some of the millions of second-hand paper editions in circulation? It's not as sexy a solution, but at least the kids won't strain their young eyeballs squinting at a screen, or waste trees by printing them out.

Re:Cute, but silly

[clonebarkins]

couldn't they just show the kids how to download the e-books from home?

You assume they have a net connection. Two words: Digital Divide

Or, since the books are mostly public-domain classics, why not provide the kids with some of the millions of second-hand paper editions in circulation?

But you're forgetting that not all the paper editions in circulation are themselves in the public domain.

The Supremes aren't the only target

[yerricde]

The entire point of the Supreme Court is that they are not swayed by public opinion.

The Supreme Court isn't the only target of these demonstrations. The U.S. Congress is located in the same town. The entire point of Congress, as implied in the Constitution, is that it is swayed by public opinion.

Re:The Supremes aren't the only target

[billnapier]

The U.S. Congress is located in the same town

And across the street from each other!

I hope it has an effect...

[anthony_dipierro]

I hope it brings attention to the issue. This is a really important case, regardless of who wins, because the Supreme Court is going to be setting a huge precedent as to how much power the Congress has in passing copyright laws. Even if they don't strike down the law they're almost certainly going to condemn the Appeals Court for saying that the First Amendment does not apply, and they are going to decide whether or not Congress is allowed to pass Copyright law which does not promote the progress of science and useful arts.

I think we're going to have a split decision, or else we're going to see the law struck down, and I highly doubt public opinion is going to be a factor at all. But people need to be educated on the issues. Even many if not most Slashdotters don't realize that copyright is not a moral right, but is one which granted solely for the purpose of encouraging progress. This Supreme Court ruling should help to show that fact.

arrested for wardriving

[Anonymous Coward]

Dateline Washington: Bookmobile crew arrested for wardriving.

"We're amazed that they thought they'd get away with it; that dish isn't exactly low-profile", said police spokesman Lt. Clueless.

"The occupants of the vehicle have been arrested and detained for possible terrorist acts. We believe they were attempting to download and print, on the spot, confidential government files."

Sources said the lack of confidential documents was not considered in the decison to make the arrest. "What else could they possibly be doing with that kind of equipment? They were clearly up to no good."

In response, the Homeland Security Department upgraded the national alert status to light pink. A White House spokesman denied rumors that the president's wardrobe selection was crossed with security documents. "He just thought he'd give orange a shot. What's wrong with orange for a tie? Besides, the president has been dressing himself for years, he doesn't need a wardrobe list."

Tom Ridge(winner of the annual "Who exactly is he anyway and how did he get to be where he is?" award, could not be reached for comment as he was busy looking severe, concerned, and important while personally inspecting a donut factory to make sure the nation's donut supply would not be in danger in case of a biological attack.

Writers are not engineers

[michaelggreer]

I am in complete diagreement with everyone here on this issue, I believe. The copyright owners of these works are the writers, who are famously poor (a few exceptions aside). Believe me, as a writer, we are poor. Taking away copyrights from writers will not steal money from "big corporations," who make their money off distribution. Neither do I hope that the future demands digitized books, wherin writers will never make any money ever. I am not sure why all of you are in favor of this. In short, writers are in a very different situation from engineers. Their work is not "information", but art. The copyrights are in their hands, not the publishers. No one else would have "figured out" that particular novel. Just because both code and novels contain words do not make them the same.

public domain software

[TerraFrost]

it's a shame they won't be giving away public domain software that wasn't originally released in the public domain... I mean, I can see books having really long copyrights, because people can enjoy those for a long time, but software? If Windows 3.1 was being enjoyed by any substantial number of people, Microsoft would still support it, but they don't. Why on earth should people not be able to use this legally, without paying for it, for the next 120 years!? I don't really care if Mickey Mouse is public domain, or not, but for the love of god, why the heck isn't Windows 3.1 public domain!?

Re:public domain software

[Rayonic]

If Windows 3.1 was being enjoyed by any substantial number of people, Microsoft would still support it

Windows 3.1 was never enjoyed by any substantial number of people.

Re:public domain software

[Gerry Gleason]

Isn't it obvious? It would still compete with their current products, therefore they have an active interest in preventing you from using it. Your only choice is to pay again for the new version, whether you want it or not.

More interesting is that a lot of software just disappears when the company that owned it goes belly up. Often, there are provisions to escrow the source so that it will continue to be available to customers who will now need to support themselves now that the company is gone. Wouldn't it be better to release it to the public domain or under GPL if the owner is no longer a viable entity?

arrrrgghhh!

[sirinek]

WEBLOG! Say it with me, Jamie... its a WEBLOG!!!

*wishing we could strike "blog" and the rest of the baby-'leet from the planet*

-siri

Re:arrrrgghhh!

[samael]

Language evolves. Contractions happen all the time, and new words are produced from old ones.

Not Palo Alto

[dcgaber]

As a product of Palo Alto public education, just thought I should point out that this school is not in Palo Alto. The itinerary says it is East Palo Alto and the map shows Menlo Park. It may seem nit-picky, but aside from name and geography, there is nothing similar about Palo Alto and EPA, they are in two different counties for crimminy sakes. EPA was the murder capitol of the country in terms or per capita murders not too long ago, and even gave out free life insurance to their students. Palo Alto on the other hand is a city where the houses average close to a million dollars and the pretention in the air is thick enough to bottle and sell.

20k Vs 1M

[dlh]

The webpage says 20,000 but the decals claim 1,000,000...

If you click on that image, you get a close up. At that level, you can see the word "soon" in parentheses.

Also, if look to their menu at the top of the page, and follow the Million Book Project link, they mention how they're hoping to achieve one million books (mua ha ha) by 2005.

Do writers need money AFTER THEY'RE DEAD?

[Wesley Felter]

Copyright currently lasts longer than the life of the author. A lot longer. If we shorten it to only the life of the author, how much harm will that do?

Re:Do writers need money AFTER THEY'RE DEAD?

[zenyu]

If we shorten it to only the life of the author, how much harm will that do?

A publisher wouldn't touch a mid-list authors book if she were close to death and the copyright would expire on her demise. I think the original copyright law was the correct one for books. 18 years, renewable for another 18 if the author is still alive. Maybe it should be shorter today because of distribution, etc. But then there are children's books to consider. I think life and a minimum of 10 years makes sense.

Re:Do writers need money AFTER THEY'RE DEAD?

[WNight]

If you don't do the "life + xx" you don't run into the unfair situation where two one-hit-wonder authors write a book to support their family (spouse + baby) and one of them gets run over by a car.

It's a contrived example, but still reasonable I think. Why should my work be worth less because I'm old, or if I happen to have inoperable cancer?

No other type of work lets you do one thing and retire on it if it's popular. If you make a beautiful chair and get famous, you still have to make and sell more chairs. And the person who owns the famous chair can let other people sit in it. It if was a book people somehow expect to be able to coast through life on an old success. (Which is unreasonable, very very few works are still bringing in useful royalty cheques sixty years after publishing.)

Then there's the idea that someone might want to unfairly influence the "life" part of a copyright. A little "accident" and some expensive artist's copyright will expire fifty years earlier than it might have. Or, keep W. Disney cryonically suspended and his copyright will never die. :)

Personally, I think almost all the benefit will come from the first 10 years. Make copyrights 10, with two optional five year extentions if you can show cause. (Has to be commercially or artistically viable, not just to keep someone else from having it.) However, a fifty year 'no for-profit reproduction' limit might be reasonable. If the author can still sell it, give them the right, but let people freely copy it amongst themselves. And if you want to give a very long (100+ year) moral copyright, such that misatributions aren't allowed, that's reasonable.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[EvanED]

Yes, but I'll spend 20 minutes on slashdot, go do something else (for example, play my cello (as I just did), go to class, do homework, etc.) and come back later. When I read a book I sit down for a couple hours and read straight through. I've yet to see a computer monitor I can read from for that length of time without a good amount of breaks. The closest I've seen are good LCDs.

Quick Cross-Country Trip

[reallocate]

Leave Palo Alto today and arrive in Columbus on Friday, including stops at "retirement and mobile homes"?

Glad I'm not driving.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[Raskolnk]

He, he, he.

Come on, that's not flamebait, its humor. If my points hadn't just expired I'd mod +1 Funny. Anyone?

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[cybermace5]

Good point.

While still offering the printed version, couldn't they also put in a cheap CD writer and burn CDs with books of your choice?

Everytime they stop they could run to a Staples for a few stacks of cheap CD-R's. Probably less expensive than paper.

Just Behind The Bookmobile

[miracle69]

Will be the FBI tail who will interview the librarians at every stop and obtain full records of what everyone read.

Perhaps the Supreme Court should look at that as well...

I don't need to eat after I'm dead & solution?

[Interrobang]

First of all, I'm a writer. Secondly, I like to eat (my reason for ongoing membership in the Great International Tech Writer Conspiracy). Thirdly, I approve of limited term copyright in certain circumstances. (There are a lot of instances where copyright comes in handy; there are also a lot where copyright is just no damn good, but that's another story.)

However, I don't think that I, my heirs and/or assigns, and/or my legal-entity estate, and/or the corporation which bought up my catalogue before or after my demise (particularly this latter) should be able to profit from my works forever, or even for three quarters of a century after I'm dead. There's no reason for it.

There are a lot of good reasons against it, though. First of all, it isn't exactly fair for other people (and/or corporations) to get fat off my legacy (let them make their own art instead of just collecting royalty cheques on my work in perpetuity). Secondly, a lot of art (books, movies, short stories, etc.) is getting "lost" in ever-extending copyright boondoggles. Many early films are decaying in their canisters, unshown and unrestored, because the copyright holder is long dead, but the work hasn't passed into the public domain. Same with thousands and thousands of what would be "mid-list" books written since 1910. Thirdly, the commonweal (that is, society at large) deserves (and, at least in the US, is Constitutionally assigned) the right to use my artistic work (after a set period) to enrich itself, which I support.

I won't need those hypothetical royalties, anyway. I'll be dead. Next question for the lawyerly types out there: Upon her demise, is it possible for an author to will her works into the public domain?

Re:I don't need to eat after I'm dead & soluti

[TheTomcat]

However, I don't think that I, my heirs and/or assigns, and/or my legal-entity estate, and/or the corporation which bought up my catalogue before or after my demise (particularly this latter) should be able to profit from my works forever, or even for three quarters of a century after I'm dead. There's no reason for it.

As you mentioned, it's probably possible to assign copyright to the public domain (or the book-equivalent of the FSF; if it exists), instead of one of the aforementioned parties. People do it with other IP all the time (software).

BUT, if you DO want to sell your catalogue (to eat), but don't want said party to retain copyright "forever", couldn't you just grant/sell them a license, with a specific sunset date, after which, it would revert to the "authority" denoted my my first paragraph?

I, for one, probably won't give 2 shakes what happens to my intellectual property when I'm gone. Mostly 'cause I'd be dead.

S

Gimmie the hardcopy.

[dmaxwell]

There are two big problems with this. I don't curl up in bed with my laptop to read something and I have yet to see a a bookreader device thats as easy on the eyes as a well typeset book. The other problem is that CD-Rs are more perishable that books and for several reasons. They won't give us a CDR unless it is encrusted with DRM. Hard drive crash? No license for you; buy the book again. Format change? No license for you. Microsoft exercises their infamous EULA terms? No license for you. If that wasn't bad enough, the physical lifetime of CDRs is bad as well. They don't seem to age as well pressed CDRs and there are doubts about those as well. Backup copy? DRM! Forget it

Yeah there's ways around it if you don't mind risking pound-me-in-the-butt federal prison but employing them for an entire library would be tedious. If I did buy a DRMed book, I'd probably look for a crack for all the same reasons we do it to games we have paid for. At the end of the day, DRM will be a PITA even for those who think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If someone fairly reasonable like Piers Anthony is gung ho for it then other authors will be well. Just check his newsletter. An email exchange pretty demonstrated to me that he thinks this stuff will Get Him Paid and nevermind the negative consequences.

Screw CDRs. I'll take the printed book thank you very much.

Re:Gimmie the hardcopy.

[Gerry Gleason]

You missed the point. The works being distributed are in the public domain and therefore there is no DRM issue.

On the other hand, paper can be recycled, and if they print on paper that has already been recycled, then the environmental issue is small and managable. Plastic and ??? materials in CDRs probably are more of an environmental problem.

Also, no-doubt you can download these works on-line if you want to read them that way, but until displays get a lot better, this won't be the most popular way to read a book.

The display technology probably can be made good enough to make a nice reading device, but it probably would cost a bit more than most people want to spend.

Death of the public domain

[dpilot]

We're dancing around the real issue, here. It's far bigger than how long Disney gets to keep exclusive rights to Mickey Moust. Unfortunately far worse damage is being done than merely overextending Mickey's copyright.

If retroactive copyright extension is upheld, then the public domain is essentially dead. At the very least, the last public domain music/literature ends up coming from early in the 20th century.

If retroactove copyright is upheld, does anyone believe that some Senator won't be for-hire next time Steamboat Willie is about to expire, and again and again after that.

At the moment, I don't give a %^&* about Mickey Mouse, nor of any of the $%^& Jack Valenti wants to protect "for Eternity minus one day." It's all the other stuff that gets dragged along with it. Essentially the cultural "abandonware" that sometimes becomes important much later. In the name of Mickey Mouse, we've prevented EVERYTHING from lapsing into the public domain.

It stinks, and I'd like to see retroactive extension reversed. Even better, I'd like to see terms more "limited". Even though Jefferson himself did sign extensions, I don't believe he envisioned going beyond "threescore and ten". After all, that's Eternity, to me.

If we can't have reversal or rollback, I'd prefer to require copyrights to need renewal. Abandonware (be it music, print, movie, or software) simply should fall into the public domain.

The Bookmobile

[jamesoutlaw]

This is pretty much off topic, but when I was about 10 years old, my Grandmother started a library in her home.... every 6 weeks or so, the Bookmobile (in this case, a green van from the Warioto Regional Library System) would come by her house and swap out some of the books she had. I don't know exactly when and where that system started, but it's primary goal was to start and support libraries in isolated rural communities, where a large public library was not available. When my Grandmother was young, some country stores would have a few shelves of books from the Bookmobile and you'd find them in other places.

She gave it up after nearly 20 years when she got married (again) and moved to another part of the county. At the peak, she had over 3,000 books available and several regular and casual readers. I think that library was the single most important part of my childhood education- I learned a lot more from those books than I did in school... I still remember how excited I was when I heard that the Bookmobile was coming. lol.

Ah.... childhood memories.

Bypassing Boswells

[Interrobang]

Well, if you're cranky, like I am, you might not want to sell your catalogue (lease, rent out, first North American Reprint Rights, but not sell outright!), so willing the entire body of work into the public domain seems to me to be an equitable solution for everyone.

Certainly would eliminate the need for (and the effect of) Boswells...

Re:I don't need to eat after I'm dead & soluti

[Gerry Gleason]

Next question for the lawyerly types out there: Upon her demise, is it possible for an author to will her works into the public domain?

The problem is with publishers who have standard contracts for this sort of thing, and are not interested in what the author wants. I gather from things I've read that industry standard contracts are more of a problem for recording artists, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same is true for print publishing. Note what happened when the courts decided that publishers needed to separately by the on-line rights to a work, they just added this right to the standard contract. I doubt that any writers got any bigger cut from this change.

It's pretty hard for the individual artist or writer to stand their ground in the face of this. The only way is to organize, and either collectively bargan for appropriate rights, or only work with publishers who give favorable terms. Many artists and writers need to wake up to the fact that they are the talent, and the publishers would have nothing without them.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[unicron]

Maybe the poster is in greenpeace...riding around in a piece of shit, crazy oil-leaking boat, looking for whalers.

Re:I think it's crap.

[MushMouth]

Actually these books ARE illustrated, with a decent cover. I was suprised by the quality, I was expecting the books to be akin to a printed out version of the Nethack documentation, but they have the quality of an O'Reilly. According to Brewster, they cost about $1.00 each to make.

Re:Subject Coverage

[Gerry Gleason]

You shouldn't get too down on them for trying to avoid litigation. Unless you are willing to fund their legal bills related to taking a stand, you don't really have a right to complain.

On the other hand, it isn't much of a Wayback Machine if it doesn't have anything before HTTP came alone. I seem to recall someone was trying to archive the bulk of all NetNews back in the 80s, not to mention all the BBS stuff. I don't see too much of this on their site.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[EvanED]

I'd have to see them, but I doubt it. LCDs are easier to read from for long periods of time than CRTs, but they still don't rival actual printed material. Unless it comes off of my old printer (HP 550C)

Re:I don't need to eat after I'm dead & soluti

[Zordak]

Hey, that sounds like the a great plot for a novel... Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Tax it annually if it's not PD

[Paul Fernhout]

Just like real estate is taxed annually to support the upkeep of the physical and social infrastructure (police, fire depts, schools, parks, roads, courts, etc), copyrights and patents should be taxed annually if they are kept out of the public domain because they too impose costs on society (limiting creative raw materials, clogging courts, deterring developers, forcing people to be extra careful in handling materials, forcing people to spend time getting permission to use works, preventing people from sharing, prison costs to house a million copyright infringing Americans perhaps put behind bars over the next decade or two like we pay the cost of putting an extra million or so drug using Americans behind bars in the last decade or two, etc.).

One way to tax copyrights and patents is to let the rights holder each year set a current value at which they would allow anyone (any individual, business, or government) to pay directly to them them after which they are legally bound to put the work in the public domain -- then they pay some fraction (3 - 5%) of this amount annually as an intellectual property tax, apart from other taxes like income tax. To keep Windows 3.1 out of the public domain, Microsoft would have to set a self assessed value balancing a desire to keep the work out of the PD by risking someone will pay them the requested amount, and yet still wanting to minimize annual taxes. If Microsoft values Windows 3.1 at $100, someone would likely pay them that to PD it. If they value it at $100 billion, then they have to write a check annually for $3 billion in "intellectual property" taxes (or whatever the tax rate is -- might be higher for patents, lower for copyrights). Taxing so called "intellectual property" is a free market approach to force rights holders to stop squatting on works. Note that fees are now paid when copyrights and patents are renewed or registered, but those should not be seen as taxes, just processing fees, same as you pay to register a real estate deed transfer, but still need to pay annual property taxes. Note that this self assessed value might not be the same as what they might sell the copyright or patent for to someone else who wished to keep it proprietary and keep paying taxes on it. Also, the rights holder could change the self assessed value annually up or down as the market changed (so in 1995, Windows 3.1 might have been valued at $100 billion but in 2002 it might only be $1 billion).

The benefits of this approach are more tax revenues for the government, a clear way to lookup if a work is still in copyright and who the owner is (just check the tax records, say by a Google search on a Library of Congress archive of all currently taxable works, with a legal requirement to submit a copy), and likely a sudden increase in PD materials for all artists to draw on. Basically, since rights holder lobbying has broken the bargain of finite time monopoly for future public domain use, this IP tax approach remakes this bargain.

Re:So lemme check and make sure I understand this.

[evilviper]

I've said it many times... reading black text on a white background is like reading the label on a flourscent bulb.

First of all, changing your colorscheme will make reading for long periods much more bearable.... Black background with white text is the best option.

The second option is to get monitor manufacturer to make a monitor with non-backlit materials. A good example is the black & white LCD screens on handhelds. It would cost less, cause less eye strain, and save loads of paper, as suddenly, people don't mind reading electronic coppies of documents. Why it hasn't been done, I don't know.

Quality is not tied to print run

[Planesdragon]

There is no mechanism that means that print-on-demand will be lower quality than a traditional print run. In fact, doing so would ensure the thing to failure.

There's nothing in the manufacuring process that cannot be done on a small scale. From what I've seen in print runs, it's not uncommon for professional bookbinding to be done one at a time by a binding machine--perhaps in rapid succession, but still one-at-a-time.

Plus, there's the simple fact that shoddy book covers are caused by poor materials, not sloppy application of said materials.

Heck, considering that there'd be total Quality Checking right at the "printer," quality would improve if anything. And

Re:I don't need to eat after I'm dead & soluti

[Interrobang]

The problem is with publishers who have standard contracts for this sort of thing, and are not interested in what the author wants.

Writers may sell serial rights, reprint rights, or first-refusal rights (usually piecemeal or by the whole as specified in the standard contract), but most publishing venues do not and have not bought copyrights for 50 years or so. (Note to writers: Never, ever sell your copyright, unless you really want someone to 0wN you forever -- especially since you can sell reprint rights until the cows come home, if your work is bankable enough. I seem to remember Stephen King telling an anecdote about a story which netted him some hundreds of dollars initially eventually bringing in some tens of thousands due to reprints etc.)

Re:I don't need to eat after I'm dead & soluti

[Gerry Gleason]

That is very informative. I'm sure that quite a few young writers make this mistake. Are there any protections for when an artist is taken advantage of?

It makes me wonder about what I have heard about standard contracts in the recording industry. The description of multi-record contracts implies that the record companies are buying rights to future works as well, and if it were only something like a first-refusal right, the artist would be able to sell recordings if the company did not want to release it. Is it because they are often involved in the production process as well?

I also remember reading that movie producers won't go ahead without clear copyright to the screenplay. In this case, at least they are typically investing a lot of their own resources in the production process. With a record, all they are providing is finance and recording facilities (maybe), and the only other creative input is the recording engineers who are probably just on salary and not entitled to any of the royalties (or is this wrong?).