From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 07:54:11 -0700

I don't think it matters to the Atlantic's argument that the facts
cited are probably wrong.  Half of all books ever published were
published since 1978 (from an analysis done by OCLC and Ithaka S+R).
The random sampling may not be large enough or it may not have taken
multiple ISBNs into account.  But the point still holds:  a book
published in 1922 (in the U.S.) is more likely to be available in some
form than a book published in 1923.  Let's not get hung up on the
facts.

Lawrence Lessig proposed a few years ago that all copyrighted works be
subject to a small tax to make the copyright owners assert their
rights. Pay the tax and you keep the copyright; don't pay and the book
falls into the public domain.  It's a good idea.  It would quickly
sort out which books have commercial potential.  In some respects this
resembles the "use it or lose it" principle of trademark law.

Joe Esposito

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:22 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:03:47 -0400
>
> See the article in the Atlantic Monthly on the impact of the copyright
> act and the big digitization projects.  The graph that comes up as
> soon as you click tells the story and then the article unpacks the
> details.  Well worth a viewing.
>
> Roughly what seems to be happening is that the copyright blanket is
> being thrown over works post-1923, by those who own copyrights that
> are thereby extended *and* by those who are active in extracting
> value from them.  But it also suppresses the value of post-1923
> materials that don't have rights-owners on the case.  If you don't
> have an estate promoting and protecting your work and agitating with
> publishers to keep it in print, your work may just vanish from scope.
> "Orphan works" so-called are the ones chiefly at risk, but as scholar
> I'm thinking of the challenge this will make simply for *knowing* the
> 20th century.
>
> Poses to me the question of what -- GIVEN the rigidity of the law --
> could best be done.  What would a rational policy or practice look
> like?  Offshore redistribution in the Turks and Caicos?  Start a
> business offering copyright insurance to publishers who take a chance
> on things?  The right test case pushed towards the "government, or we
> don't need no stinking government" Supreme Court?
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/#.T3dP4kT9WRc.twitter
>
> Jim O'D