LikeLike

@K Morris: Happy New Year, Kevin! Two excellent questions! The copyright term issue is just slightly simpler than the other. In the case of individually copyrighted works, I’d like to see copyright in effect only through writers’ lifetimes plus twenty-five years, with renewals required to help address the issue of orphaned works. That would be shorter than the current 75 years. I’m still thinking this matter through. I do believe that other kinds of copyright, including the work for hire variety, should involve far shorter terms than the current 95 years from the year of its first publication. Same for year of creation, if that standard is used.

Compensation for writers is a complex issue. Let’s say the measurement is per book. What kind of book? Mass fiction or highly specialized professional works with very limited audiences? Is the author publishing on his or her own? Going with a good publisher able to add value? Is the book sold directly or via a full-service book stores with certain minimal costs. And if we’re talking instead about libraries, as we are here, what are the business models? A one-time purchase? Or per access? And how much of the per-access costs are to be borne by small, extremely budget-strapped libraries? I could argue they should be low or nonexistent, if a one copy-at-a-time access arrangement is used. Remember the debate over right of first sale—we can’t just forget about it.

In the end, I would argue that the real issue is, how much are libraries spending on books, total? As I see it, the $1.7 billion that U.S. public libraries are now devoting annually on content is a pittance of what it should be ultimately—I’d like to see that amount greatly increased in time, while actually multiplying the number of in-copyright library books available to the typical reader, no matter where he or she lives. The increase could come from a mix of tax money and a national library endowment. I’m looking many many years ahead toward the time when the endowment could grow and when library finances are a lot healthier than now.

All these specifics are worthy of discussions between libraries and content-providers, as part of the planning of the proposed endowment and the related national digital library systems. My mind is certainly open to being changed. I would say, however, that current digital arrangements threaten the sustainability of the library lending model. If it fades away, that will hurt both publishers and writers. Remember, libraries are marketing tools in disguise for typical publishers.

Meanwhile, accurate or not, here is a discussion of authors’ status quo in the U.S. as compensation arrangements exist now. The typical writer, especially one without streaming or movie sales, just isn’t going to do that well financially. Don’t count on the endowment or anything else magically changing that even though it could noticeably help by expanding the universe of readers.

LikeLiked by 1 person

LikeLike

LikeLike