petersuberFeb 10, 2023

Kudos to the New York Public Library (#NYPL) for mining this vein of gold beneath our feet.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzyde/librarians-are-finding-thousands-of-books-no-longer-protected-by-copyright-law

"NYPL has been reviewing the US #Copyright Office’s official…records for [books] whose copyrights haven’t been renewed…The books in question were published between 1923 & 1964, before changes to US copyright law removed the requirement for rights holders to renew their copyrights…Around 65 -75% of rights holders opted not to renew their copyrights."

#PublicDomain
🧵

Librarians Are Finding Thousands Of Books No Longer Protected By Copyright Law

Up to 75 percent of books published before 1964 may now be in the public domain, according to researchers at the New York Public Library.

Show threadpetersuberFeb 10, 2023

If most rightsholders didn't renew their copyrights, when renewal was required to maintain copyright protection, this supports Lawrence @lessig's proposal to reinstate the renewal requirement. See e.g. his _Future of Ideas_ (2001), p. 252:
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/5710/lessig_FOI.pdf

"If a copyright isn’t worth it to an author to renew for a modest fee, then it isn’t worth it to society to support —through an array of criminal and civil statutes— the monopoly protected."

#Copyright #Renewal #Monopoly #PublicDomain

Show threadSimon LucyFeb 10, 2023

@petersuber @lessig

And creators that can't afford it lose their rights?

Show threadsalaruaFeb 10, 2023
@simon_lucy @petersuber @lessig a copyright reform i would support is one where copyright would not only have to be renewed every year at increasing cost, but the creator has to opt in to it, rather than it being automatic. creators who do not renew or do not opt in to copyright restriction would still have rights; their work would have the same protections as the CC BY-SA license, so their work could be freely distributed, but they have to be credited, including in remixes and derivatives of the work
Show threadSimon LucyFeb 10, 2023

@salarua @petersuber @lessig

So you only want it mostly shit.
Have you ever produced copyrighted work?

Show threadsalaruaFeb 10, 2023
@simon_lucy @petersuber @lessig yes, but i immediately licensed it as CC BY-SA because i wanted my work to take a life of its own. the thing about culture is that it's a constant flow, combination, and remixing of ideas. the flow of ideas sustains art, and to keep the flow of culture going, works of art must be free. copyright is like placing a dam in the middle of the flow. by preventing free sharing and remixing of works, it dries up the flow
Show threadSimon Lucy

@salarua @petersuber @lessig

No it isn't a dam it's a funnel. And your choices are yours, why impose them on anyone else?

Feb 10, 2023 at 6:11pmTusky
Show threadsalaruaFeb 10, 2023

@simon_lucy @petersuber @lessig setting aside the disastrous effects of copyright restrictions on science for a moment, i'm not forcing my choices on anyone else. under my proposal, copyright restrictions are still available, you just have to pay to have a monopoly on distribution.

and, continuing with the water metaphor, can you explain further why copyright is a funnel? if you mean that it allows art to be put into physical media like books and CDs, that's also possible under more permissive rights. one could go to a bookbinder with a digital book and pay for it to be printed and bound, with some of the payment going to offset the cost of printing it and the rest going to the author.

one could even sell printed versions of books they like, and a lot of bibliophiles like myself would pay a good amount of money to have a physical copy of a digital book

Show threadSimon LucyFeb 10, 2023

@salarua @petersuber @lessig

No it helps to manage distribution. There isn't often a monopoly on distribution, it's one of the controls some creators have, not all by any means but that isn't the fault of copyright.

There are more problems than publisher distribution rights in science.

Show threadsalaruaFeb 10, 2023

@simon_lucy @petersuber @lessig people can be prosecuted for sharing works of art, even without profiting off of that sharing. i'd call that a monopoly on distribution. although i was slightly inaccurate when i said authors had a monopoly on distribution; most of the time they're forced to sign their rights away to publishers.

as for the problems in science, yes, there are bigger problems than science journals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't solve the science journal problems too.

i do have a question for you: what is the purpose of copyright?

Show threadSimon LucyFeb 10, 2023

@salarua @petersuber @lessig

No most authors are not forced to sign away their copyright.

Academic authors have been and often are published in journals that require copyright assignment but that is shrinking and often the copyright is owned by the academic institution. That's a complicated and messy problem which exists because publishing is a requirement as an academic and there's hardly any readership.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Berne Convention - Wikipedia