Unfortunate: Novelist Joins Lawsuit Against Libraries; Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity

from the short-sighted dept

Tue, Oct 11th 2011 7:27pm — Mike Masnick

After the Authors Guild decided to prove that it's really against education by suing University Libraries, it also began a disappointing game of "gotcha". Specifically, the Guild found J.R. Salamanca, an author who the HathiTrust had been unable to find. The HathiTrust had listed a novel by Salamanca in its list of potential orphan works. The list actually worked as intended -- providing time for any such authors to identify themselves and to stop the orphaned work from becoming available as a scanned work.

Still, this made HathiTrust look bad, and it put the project on hold. The best response, though, was from Duke University's Scholarly Communications Officer, Kevin Smith, who wrote an open letter to Salamanca urging him not to join the lawsuit:

It is not a comfortable position to be a pawn in a game of �gotcha,� especially when it involves litigation. What I want to say to you is the same thing I say to faculty authors at the institution where I work: �Consider carefully where your own best interests lie, and manage your copyright to serve those interests.�

[....]

I am sure I do not have to tell you that libraries, including those that intend to participate in the Hathi Orphan Works project, are not your enemies. We are in the business of helping authors find readers, which hardly seems like it should be an objectionable activity. So let�s think for a minute about The Lost Country and what might be best for it and for you.

The sad fact is that The Lost Country has become a pretty obscure work. Amazon.com shows only two used copies available for sale. In the Duke Libraries, the last transaction record we have for your novel is in 2004, when our copy was sent to high-density storage. It has not left the facility once since then, and our system shows no circulations in the prior decade, either. One of the famous �laws� of librarianship is that every book should have its readers, and the current system, I am afraid, is failing to connect your book to new readers.

It has to be said that the Authors Guild is not going to help you in this regard. They are not going to publish a new edition of The Lost Country for you, nor will they pay you any royalties on the out-of-print edition. The Authors Guild simply does not have the ability to create a new market for your book. Even if they were to succeed in a grand strategy to impose a licensing scheme for orphan works in general, there is no reason to believe that you would profit from it. With such an obscure work, potential users who had to pay a fee would probably just skip the planned use.

Where you can find help for this problem is with the HathiTrust. Their goal, and the goal of the libraries that plan to participate in the orphan works project, is to make it easier for readers to find works like your novel, which might otherwise languish on shelves or in large warehouses of books. Digital access to low-use titles through our catalogs will encourage users to discover resources, for study and for entertainment, that they might not have bothered with before.

It appears that the rhetoric from the Authors Guild won out, and J.R. Salamanca has gone in the other direction, joining the lawsuit against the universities and the HathiTrust. What a sad legacy Salamanca is adding to his career. Rather than embracing greater access to his obscure and out of print works, he's chosen to attack learning institutions who sought to make his works more accessible. As a professor himself, he ought to be ashamed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, j.r. salamanca, libraries, orphan works
Companies: authors guild, hathitrust

65 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:40pm

Maybe the authors guild is giving him some kind of payout to be their poster child against the HathiTrust. If that is the case then he probably is thinking that this will be his last opportunity to make any money from his book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:41pm

Got it
"The Lost Country" by J.R. Salamanca, is a work that has been forgotten by nearly everybody, and should be considered as such, under penalty of law.

Google, do your magic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
josh_m (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:51pm

Hate the game, not the player. Most orphan works are orphaned because they don't make money; suing on copyright is by default a more valuable use. The orphan work problem is a direct result of the excessive copyright term. If we don't want people taking this kind of action we shouldn't give them decades upon decades in which to sue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:52pm

Why should he be ashamed? It was his decision, and his alone, to make, something that tends to be overlooked by all of those who are not rights holders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:52pm

I can't help but wonder if going by J.R may be a trigger for idiotic behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:55pm

I'm surprised that Hathitrust ignores one of the most salient facts about book readership.

If someone reads a book and enjoys it, then they are much more likely to look for more books by that author. Even if the first book is a 'loaner' from a library or a friend, there is a significant likelihood that they will look to buy more of the author's books.

In this way, even an 'orphaned' book can spur sales of newer books, ones that are still in print/circulation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Jackson (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:02pm

Traditional Publishers model
Those that cling to the old ways, like Salamanca, will die the death of 1000 buggy whips and feel the pricks of 1000 elephant goads - they will not feel the flood of new cash from new buyers.
The truth is:- if Salamanca got 100,000 e-book sales and made 25 cents on each one he would do a great deal better than $10 per book on zero sales.
If he wants obscurity, he is making a down payment on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:07pm

One wonders if the Authors Guild was telling him the truth about what really was happening. Because if you told me all my works would end up being considered orphaned if this one went in... Id be against it.

I do not understand the issues beyond that.
The Authors Guild is making a huge show about this to "prove" the orphaned works list is faulty, when in truth it did what it was supposed to do.

The author has every right to let the book become obscure. The author has the right to do things how he wants even if they are insane on the face of it.

If the book was any good it would not have languished on a shelf for over a decade with no one even looking.
While matching readers to books is important, matching readers to authors connected to reality seems to be a bit more important.

I say start the project back up and let the Authors Guild do the work of finding all of the others on the list who might still be around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
josh_m (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:09pm

Re: Traditional Publishers model
Well they can take the chance at $25,000 by your numbers, or sue for statutory damages for one act of willful infringement of up to $150,000.

The problem is the current law encourages suit and does not make the /chance/ of future sales look rosy. It's twisting the "furtherance of the arts" goal of copyright on its head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:14pm

Re:
The book was the basis for an Elvis movie... burn them all.

That adds an interesting twist... could be be concerned about it affecting other royalties.

Not to mention a 2000 re-release of another one of his novels from 1961.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:14pm

Re:
Your question is stupid.

The fact that it was his decision (and no one has claimed it was not) does not render him immune from criticism and/or shame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vic, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:19pm

RE: "As a professor himself, he ought to be ashamed."
It's no secret that not every professor can think clearly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:21pm

The HathiTrust had listed a novel by Salamanca in its list of potential orphan works. The list actually worked as intended -- providing time for any such authors to identify themselves and to stop the orphaned work from becoming available as a scanned work.

LOL! Not really, Mike. God, you're an apologist to the core.

The idea of the screening was to identify the truly orphaned works. The fact is that HathiTrust put their best candidates on this list as representative of how great their screening process was. With a little due diligence, several of these orphaned works were shown not to be orphaned after all.

HathiTrust fucked up big time, and it's a huge embarrassment for them. Only a compulsive apologist who was incapable of being intellectually honest (like yourself) could say this turn of events shows their system was working as planned.

God, you're such a fucking liar. You really are on a roll with bullshit after bullshit anti-ip, pro-pirate FUD today. Good on ya, Mike! Job well done today shoveling out piles of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:37pm

"Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
That's solely his prerogative. You've NO say in the matter, not even to rag him. But you're so full of chutzpah that you constantly advise people -- even billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch -- that they don't know their own best interests or wishes. -- Along with that, you pretty clearly show that money is your only gauge of what this author should do. He may WISH the book forgotten -- that could be a sign of growth: authors often cringe at their early works. OR as mentioned above, could expect more money from joining the suit. OR he could simply be outraged at his work being blithely appropriated WITHOUT PERMISSION. Doesn't matter even if he couldn't be found: HathiTrust has NO right to appropriate what they know is still under copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:44pm

Re:
The idea of the screening was to identify the truly orphaned works. The fact is that HathiTrust put their best candidates on this list as representative of how great their screening process was. With a little due diligence, several of these orphaned works were shown not to be orphaned after all.

So HathiTrust has some holes in their process. Please name one thing in the entire history of the planet that worked perfectly the very first time?

I have an idea. Why doesn't the Author's Guild and the rest of the publishing industry do something useful and help them make it better?

That was the only useful part of your post. As to the rest, I'll respond in kind:

Hey asshole, go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike42 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:44pm

Re:
With flames like this, you'd better hope Mike is right, and the New York senators never get their bill passed.
You may not live in New York, but if you ever visit...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:50pm

Could this be the reason the Authors Guild is so against this?

http://www.backinprint.com/

They have their own service where they print new copies on demand, and only take 20% oh and in "most" cases this service is free to the authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:53pm

Re:
"Why should he be ashamed?"

Because as a professor he should see the educational benefit of having his book available to many, and the disservice he does to education by ensuring it stays hidden away being read by nobody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:57pm

Found!
I was looking for an example of stupidity, FOUND!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:02pm

Re: Re:
So HathiTrust has some holes in their process. Please name one thing in the entire history of the planet that worked perfectly the very first time?

I don't have a problem with the system not being perfect. But the fact remains that their system was a failure and it didn't "actually work[] as intended" as Pirate Mike claims it did. Why don't you ask Mike he's desperately trying to spin this as a job well done?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg G (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:07pm

Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
"You've NO say in the matter, not even to rag him."

So no one else, including Mike, is entitled to an opinion?

In that case, neither do you. YOU have no say in this matter, but you're so full of ignorance that you constantly deride people -- and why should it matter how much money anyone makes? Look out for your own best interests and think before you post.

Or better yet, keep doing what you're doing. We all love a good laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re:
Am I supposed to be scared or something? LMAO!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
So I guess we should scrap that whole thing where stuff gets taken down on the internet because 'rights holders' can't identify their own works and make false takedown requests every single day?

I'm cool with that. Surprised you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeRatzo (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:21pm

Re:
Hate the game, not the player.
That's kind of stupid. In this case, without the playa, there is no game.

J.R. Salamanca (if that really is his name) is a turd. His book is a turd and whoever has the two used copies of his book for sale on Amazon should immediately pull them and throw them in the trash for this douche move by Ms Salamanca.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:52pm

Re:
In this case the players are the game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AW (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re:
With a $70 price tag on a garbage book. No one is going to be buying any time soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AW (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
I suppose Sony should take down it's Playstation network since it's been hacked again, I suppose VC should stop happening since the majority of money spent does not come back. I suppose baseball players should stop playing if they don't hit a home run every time at bat. See how calling something a failure for not working like it was intended makes you look like an idiot. Fact of the matter is, more people now know about this work due to that list than at any time in the past, and because of MM you now know about the book. So I'd say it works pretty well, but I guess you could claim that copyright lawyers are the champions here because they would have found the book if they had nothing to gain...oh right, no they wouldn't have. Get a name if you're going to have a conversation, it's makes you a douche not to at least create a pseudonym or should we just call you darryl?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AW (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:52pm

Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
1.If he didn't want it known he would take it off his Amazon store.
2. If he was outraged he could simply have followed the procedure to have it removed, the link to contact them is at the top of every page.
3. Rupert Murdoch and his family are being investigated for hacking a cell phone. If they were treated the same as anyone without money they'd be in prison. Maybe someone should have advised him that having money does not mean you're entirely above the law.
4. I live in America, I have every right to rag "on" him. You do not have a right to not be offended and your salty tears sustain me.
5. A book published in the 1950s could easily be within the public domain if the copyright was not renewed. This book was renewed so is under copyright until the 1940s but they are still a library an libraries are able to lend books, even copyrighted ones. Especially since the people who wrote the original laws were the ones to create the library system. I guess those pesky founding fathers couldn't see the benefit of closing off information since an informed public is key to a healthy republic. Are you full of so much chutzpah as to tell Ben Franklin how to run a country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:49pm

Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
Basically, your post condenses down to
"Waah, Waah! I can't control who gets to read my books! I'm not the overlord of my books!"
Don't you get it? We're sick and tired of hearing about how an author has to control and police his work extensively.

And your last sentence: THAT'S WHAT AN ORPHAN WORK IS! The author cannot be found. Alright, in this case, he was found, yes, that was a mistake on their part. But, if a copyright holder cannot be found, then they do have the right to take the books and allow others to read them for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:23am

money, or rather the thought of getting more than he would through sales, recognition or whatever, is obviously more important. hopefully, he will learn before this ridiculous episode progresses further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:18am

Re:
but we are the rights holders. Its just that we grant authors, through our government representatives, a monopoly for a period of time. Had you forgotten?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:39am

Re: Re: Re:
I don't have a problem with the system not being perfect. But the fact remains that their system was a failure and it didn't "actually work[] as intended" as Pirate Mike claims it did.

Actually it did. The point of the public list was to deal with situations exactly like this, where their initial review missed someone. Exactly as intended.

And as others noted, if a false positive means the whole system is a failure, then, well, the entire copyright system you love should be scrapped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
colin, 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:55am

Orphan works
That article just demonstrates that some people can write but apparently can't read. Good grief. How much clearer could that letter have been?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
m, 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:28am

No surprise; we live in a world of small people with small views. Why should any specific one be any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old Fool (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:32am

Publicity stunt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:36am

Re:
Nah - that old buffer in the yellow pages ad seemed quite nice...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:38am

Re: Re: Traditional Publishers model
Well they can take the chance at $25,000 by your numbers, or sue for statutory damages for one act of willful infringement of up to $150,000.

Since the trust didn't actually do any infringement - but simply announced their intention - that point is somewhat moot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Re:
But the fact remains that their system was a failure and it didn't "actually work[] as intended"

No - you are wromg - it worked exactly as inteneded - apart from the fact that it provoked misleading publicity from the authors' guild and people like you.

It was a multi stage process - the final stage will always catch something in such a process. If they had thought the earlier screening stages were going to work perfectly they wouldn't have bothered with that final stage.

Why do you hate freedom so much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:27am

Re: Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
"that was a mistake on their part"

Not a mistake, the system worked exactly as intended. If they couldn't find the author, they setup a system where the author could find them. They put every reasonable effort into associating a person with a work before it was put out for free, and in this case it worked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:32am

Re: Re:
no, the question isnt stupid. the author is.

this is the first and probably the last time i will ever hear of this author. and ill never read his book.

not because of his short sighted decision that would make me not want to read it in the first place... but because he is removing any possibility for me to read it. its out of print, not likely to see a re-issue and he has just insured that i will never be able to read it anyway.

so to that i say way to go jughead!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:49am

Re:
all of your points are 100% correct.

but that still does not meant that it was a smart move.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:57am

Re:
and im surprised that you dont quite grasp the bigger fact about books.

if no one is able to FIND your book in the first place, no one will be able to read it... and by direct result, none of those benifits you mention could take place either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:57am

Re: Re:
i take it back... actually, im not surprised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 6:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually it did. The point of the public list was to deal with situations exactly like this, where their initial review missed someone. Exactly as intended.

And as others noted, if a false positive means the whole system is a failure, then, well, the entire copyright system you love should be scrapped.

There's not an honest bone in your body, is there?

The fact that several books on the list were easily shown with a bit of due diligence to not be orphan works shows that the vetting process they're using doesn't work as it should. Of course, Pirate Mike can't admit that maybe they're process isn't working perfectly.

Don't believe me? Let's see what an expert who knows far more about this stuff than you or I thinks. According to Prof. Grimmelmann: "Once is a mistake, twice bad luck, and three times is a sign of a broken process. The Authors Guild�s experiment demonstrates that HathiTrust�s orphan-tagging workflow cannot be relied on to identify genuinely orphan works with sufficient confidence to be usable."

Read it for yourself: http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/09/15/hathitrust_single-handedly_sinks_orphan_works_refo

Hon estly, Mike. I'm not saying the "whole system is a failure." You love to think in ridiculous extremes like a child does. But fuck you for being so dishonest and slimy that you can't admit that they're system isn't working perfectly.

You really are a fucking joke, Mike. It's a shame. No wonder you're on the fringe. You honestly disgust me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't have a problem with the system not being perfect. But the fact remains that their system was a failure and it didn't "actually work[] as intended" as Pirate Mike claims it did. Why don't you ask Mike he's desperately trying to spin this as a job well done?"

dunno if is you or not, but sems like the same person so yes you said it fial :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimr (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:31am

I am sure Salamanca just does not want anyone reading his works. He obviously wants his work to quietly die in obscurity. And that is his choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
as Tim Bruno puts it in the comments on your own link

"Due diligence does not equal infallibility. Insofar as the stated purpose of the Orphan Candidate List is �to help and encourage possible copyright holders to identify themselves so that we can identify them in record,� then the system already appears to be working. Far from demonstration of the HathiTrust�s ineptitude or bad faith, this is only further demonstration of the HathiTrust and its partners� willingness to respect the intellectual property rights of authors and legitimate copyright holders."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:18am

Re: Re: Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
Oh...thanks for the correction!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the system failed, so that means it's a failure. But it doesn't mean that it's a total failure. That's taking it too far. It's subtle, I know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scottbp (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:39am

Re: hating games and players
I hate this sentiment. If the game sucks then someone who choose to play it is every bit as culpable as the game itself.
You don't get a pass for being a bad actor because the system is bad. J.R. Salamander be a mensch! Engage the university, not the lawyers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Playstation network was not hacked again - please get the facts straight. http://www.pcworld.com/article/241742/no_sony_wasnt_hacked_but_they_were_massattacked.html#tk.rss_ne ws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
as Tim Bruno puts it in the comments on your own link

"Due diligence does not equal infallibility. Insofar as the stated purpose of the Orphan Candidate List is �to help and encourage possible copyright holders to identify themselves so that we can identify them in record,� then the system already appears to be working. Far from demonstration of the HathiTrust�s ineptitude or bad faith, this is only further demonstration of the HathiTrust and its partners� willingness to respect the intellectual property rights of authors and legitimate copyright holders."

Yes, due diligence doesn't equal infallibility. That doesn't mean that the system in place is adequate. It's not. HathiTrust got to put their best examples forward. With little effort, several were shown to not be truly orphaned. It's clear their system of vetting these works needs some work. If a work can be shown to not be orphaned after a couple minutes on Google, then the process is insufficient. Look, I don't have a problem with the HathiTrust. I'm just being realistic. I'm not trying to make a bunch of excuses and working backwards like Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's quite obvious to all rational people who the "child" is here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:15pm

Re:
he is ashamed, clearly he doesn't want his book to be read, ever.
I guess he knows it was shit, and doesn't want it as his legacy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
The current attitude of a lot of copyright holders seems to be that no one should get any use or enjoyment out of their work unless they get a big chunk of money up front, and they're going to sue anybody who even thinks about trying.

And yes the term of copyright is idiotically too long, potentially well over 100 years (life of the author plus 70 years), and gets extended another 20 years every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire. A return to the original 14 year term with an optional 14 year extension would seem about right to me. I suspect the useful life of all but the greatest of works is around 10 years, and after that most are probably forgotten. For companies like Disney that have something special they want copyright forever, perhaps a law granting them extensions on just their special copyright with an ever increasing fee for each successive extension ($10, $1000, $100,000...) would be more appropriate than extending the term on all copyrights just for the benefit of that one particular party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brad, 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:26pm

Re: Got it
made it to page 2 in google search returns for The lost country by JR salamanca review.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's not an honest bone in your body, is there?

Ad hom.

The fact that several books on the list were easily shown with a bit of due diligence to not be orphan works shows that the vetting process they're using doesn't work as it should.

"As it should?" Last I checked, the process including announcing a list of books where they could not find the author to see if any came forward. That seems to be exactly what happened. I stand by my statement: it appears to have worked exactly as stated.

Of course, Pirate Mike can't admit that maybe they're process isn't working perfectly

Ad hom.

Don't believe me? Let's see what an expert who knows far more about this stuff than you or I thinks.

Ad hom.

According to Prof. Grimmelmann: "Once is a mistake, twice bad luck, and three times is a sign of a broken process. The Authors Guild�s experiment demonstrates that HathiTrust�s orphan-tagging workflow cannot be relied on to identify genuinely orphan works with sufficient confidence to be usable.",

I respect James a ton, but he's talking about something different. The question is whether or not the overall system worked as intended, and it did. If it didn't non-orphaned works would have been released as orphan. But you ignore the fact that part of the system clearly was designed to work in this manner... and did work exactly as planned.

Hon estly, Mike. I'm not saying the "whole system is a failure." You love to think in ridiculous extremes like a child does.

No. You are the one making extreme statements and carrying on.

But fuck you for being so dishonest and slimy that you can't admit that they're system isn't working perfectly.

Ad hom.

You really are a fucking joke, Mike. It's a shame. No wonder you're on the fringe. You honestly disgust me.

Ad hom.

Generally speaking, when you have nothing credible to say you go for the ad homs. This entire comment shows pretty clearly the quality of your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Jackson (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:00pm

Axe to Grind
It looks like the authors guild wants to block google and amazon and anyone but them by offering a badder deal - only a 20% royalty, coupled with a print on demand process that will rack the price up to the point where the market is extinguished.
It resembles the little boy with a lemonade stand and a sign
LEMONADe $1,000,000, face full of grins - all I have to do is sell one....
This so called authors guild deserves nothing but ashes and dust.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:54pm

Re: Traditional Publishers model
I thought he wanted $70 a copy, I wouldn't give him 70 cents for it. Or even seven cents. And anybody who did buy it would have to be crazy to pay that kind of a price for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"perhaps a law granting them extensions on just their special copyright with an ever increasing fee for each successive extension ($10, $1000, $100,000...) would be more appropriate than extending the term on all copyrights just for the benefit of that one particular party"

Oh, I like this one! basic Copyright of 15 years with a logarithmic price increase for each 15 year extension based on the number of previous extensions.
1st 15 years = $(10^0)x(10^0) = $1 (or Free if you prefer) 2nd 15 years = $(10^1)x(10^1) = $100 3rd 15 years = $(10^2)x(10^2) = $10,000 4th 15 years = $(10^3)x(10^3) = $1,000,000 5th 15 years = $(10^4)x(10^4) = $100,000,000 6th 15 years = $(10^5)x(10^5) = $10,000,000,000
Somehow I don't think many would make it to the $10 billion mark...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or we could simplify by going to a 10 year term and a straight logarithmic scale.

10 years = $10^(number of previous extensions)
$1.00; $10.00; $100.00; $1,000.00; $10,000.00; $100,000.00; $1,000,000.00; $10,000,000.00; $100,000,000.00; $1,000,000,000.00; and so on...
Total for 100 years of copyright protection is $1,111,111,111.00
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brendan (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 6:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like this version.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hector Salamanca, 16 Oct 2011 @ 8:23pm

Ding.... ding!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrei Mincov (profile), 20 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
This is so true...

I'm always amazed by the people insisting on their right to make decisions for someone else.

This is not whose model is better. This is about whether authors have a right to make decisions for themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 7:58pm

yes, and when the next orphan, forgotten and neglected, is your coddled sports car, languishing in the garage undriven and pristine, give me a call, because I can DRIVE it and use it for the purpose it was created for. Digital today and "real" tomorrow...share and share alike! Right? Adverse possession?
[ link to this | view in thread ]