Slashdot Mirror
Opening the Public Doman to Orphan Books
InklingBooks writes "In the late 1990s, when Hollywood paid an all-too-willing Congress to extend copyright terms to 90 years, an existing problem grew much worse. Many out-of-print books, including some SciFi classics, became orphans. Though still "protected" by copyright, there was no one around who could give legal permission to publish them. Their author were dead, and it was expensive and often impossible to find out who (if anyone) now owned their literary estates. Fortunately, the Copyright Office is now taking comments on how the law might be changed. See Orphan Works."
I wonder if one could digitally create a series of independent virtual limited liability companies for the sole purpose of testing orphanhood of abandonware books and media. Each LLC would be endowed with $0.01 in assets and be the titular legal entity attached to the free distribution of one potentially orphaned book. Should the author/heirs/owners come forward, the LLC would die instantly but not affect any of the other LLC orphan-media-representing companies.
IANAL, but I wonder how the tools and sensibilities of digital systems (high scalability at extremely low costs) can be applied to legal and corporate structures. If one can create a new company as easily as one creates a new domain name, some interesting (and some not so pleasant) things might occur.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
If something can be done about this problem it would be an incredible step forward in copyright law.
Hopefully they will also consider "abandonware" not just books.
I was lucky enough to be able to get in touch with the author of my favorite computer book to get permission republish the work under a Creative Commons license: Thinking Forth. Computer books are notorious for going out of print but they have high value to vintage computer users, and some like TF are valuable classics in and of themselves.
Not everyone is so fortunate though. Usually the copyright holder is impossible to get hold of or they have no interest in even discussing it. Or else you are dealing with a legal department that just wants to keep any possible liabilities to a minimum. No benefit to them, so not worth it to deal with you.
How about for any work under copyright, they have to PUBLISH the owner of the copyright to the library of congress every 10 years, or the copyright is to be considered expired. In effect, you have to tell people who owns the copyright in order to maintain the copyright.
It seems like some middle ground could be reached. I can see how some would see a work automatically falling out of copyright if not registered as a "trap" for the unwary.
What if the work didn't fall out of copyright completely, if not registered, but into a gray area for some number of years, say 15. Then if someone tries to contact the copyright holder officially, some number of times, with no success, they automatically qualify for safe harbor from prosecution for violation of copyright. Now if THEY are notified by the author and continue to distribute infringing copies, then they are subject to prosecution.
But the copyright holder retains their copyright in all cases.
Given the era of the internet, publishing is effectively free. We don't have to stockpile copies of creative works, tying up money in the process. So it wouldn't be a big deal for the infringer... he hadn't put much into it anyway.
Eventually, with no interest from the copyright holder the work would become public domain, but hey-- if they are that out of it, it's probably because they aren't making use of the monopoly granted them, and the public's interest should be considered more important.
I'm sure there are rough edges to this idea, and that it is in no way original, but I'm sure any problems could be hashed out.
I like the EFF's idea, that copyright is for 20 years, and after that, you only need to pay 1 dollar to extend it each year. That way old copyrights can return to the public. Also make a maximum of 100 years per copyright. Solves most issues, more things return to the public domain that are not used anymore. And people can extend copyrights if used.
I would like a mix, 60 years, and the extension costs more each time. At 60 years, its 100, 61 its 200, then 400, so on, that way it gets increasingly costly per year to keep copyrights. Tts a way to tax the copyrights, after 80 years, unless its a money maker, the owner wouldnt renew.
And on the side, this funds the copyright office to do more indepth reporting and watching for duplicate copyrights or invalid search.
EFF has a good start to handle copyrights, wish they had more political power. I feel sometimes like the EFF is like the ACLU, always in court loosing, or working on the wrong rights. (My perspective anyways..)
Ok, how about this approach?
Copyright grabts you an exclusive first-sale right. If you stopp selling something, then obviously you do not want this right anymore.
Copyright should include an obligation to make the work available to the public, in exchange for the exclusive sale right granted to the copyright holder by the public.
I see no reason why "hording" should be allowed. If the copyright owner is not interested in selling the work anymore, be it book, game, software, or whatever, then copyright should expire.
"hording" a work would still be possible by selling it only for exorbitant prices intended to scare of everyone, so this is not a perfect solution. But it would require more effort, and orphaned works would be impossible
What do you think?