Guy Writes New James Bond Book... Only Available Where Bond Is In The Public Domain
from the get-it-now dept
Since I run Techdirt, book publishers frequently push random books on me. Sometimes they just send the books. More frequently they send me announcements about books to see if I might be interested. Most go directly in the recycle bin. But one that came in just recently caught my eye -- and not because of the subject matter. Usually the books are about the tech industry or politics or something. But this was a James Bond story. I almost tossed it out immediately, assuming someone mail merged the wrong press list -- but then I realized why we were on the list. James Bond recently went into the public domain in Canada, raising some interesting questions over what that meant -- since 007 is still protected by copyright in the US and some other countries. So, now it appears that some guy named Curtis Cook has decided to write himself his own Bond book, and the press release touts the fact that it's because Bond is in the public domain in Canada.At the end of the letter, it notes that review copies are available worldwide, but that "commercial sales [will be] limited to Canada and other countries that are "life plus 50" Berne rule signatories." In other words, don't expect to see the book in the US, unless you snag a review copy.
Of course, the book may be absolutely terrible. But it does seem interesting that this book can only be sold in certain countries -- and not in the US -- thanks to copyright law. Something seems fundamentally wrong about that -- but I guess that people who live in countries outside the US who frequently experience ridiculous geoblocks will note that this is just a physical form of the same thing, but in reverse.
In the meantime, with Bond in the public domain in Canada, it's not just new Bond books we're seeing, but other interesting projects as well -- such as a new unauthorized anthology of Bond stories called License Expired. I imagine plenty more is on the way as well. All this creativity... and none of it can touch the United States. Because of our broken copyright system.
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: canada, copyright, culture, james bond, license expired, life plus 50, public domain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bond on the rocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
Since 99% of all writing is CRAP, it's mathematically certain that copyright spares us from FAR more dreck than good.
Anyway. Where, oh, where will you get a next topic? Peeking in dumpsters? Brands of urinal cakes? -- Oh, look at this wet spot the dog made, it's Eric Schmidt in silhouette!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, no
By your own math, if you increased the amount of works being created, yes, you'd be increasing the amount of crap being written, but you'd also be increasing the amount of good writing being written.
Since people are able to read reviews of written works or stop reading when they determine that they don't like the writing, there's nothing wrong with letting all those works get written.
Why would you support copyright for the purpose of suppressing the creation of works when that's the exact opposite of its purpose? That right there just shows that you're not interested in art or knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um, no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basic math 101
1) 1% of 100
2) 1% of 1,000
Answer that one and you'll be able to see why your 'copyright is good because it massively decreases creativity and spares us from crap' argument is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
it certainly didn't help in THIS case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
Rummaging is a great word...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
No part of creativity is movies imitating 400-year old stories
No part of creativity is everything imitating 200-year old plays
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
Strike all the historical dramas from Shakespeare's repertoire. And all historical play. And every play or show involving non-fictional people. Or any non-fictional animals. Which includes humans, by the way. Or anything ever seen before or referring to anything ever seen before.
"Oh come on, not another movie about carbon-based life forms. Not light patterns on a screen again. How unimaginative. Somebody switch off the Internet. It's just ones and zeros all over again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
So, you're saying that none of the newer official Bond books have been creative? What about the Bond movies? What about things like Kingsman: The Secret Service, which owes a huge debt to those same books? At what point do they suddenly become "creative"? When an MGM executive tells you you should? What's your opinion on the Hollywood studios that adapt books that are even older?
"Try rummaging through http://www.fanfiction.net/ for the utter DRECK fans write. "
What about the fan fiction that's been officially published, that's been picked up by a publisher and professionally edited? There's still some bad stuff out there, but at least you'd be comparing things on a level playing field. Let me guess - even you know that your ideas fall apart when you compare apples to apples?
"Since 99% of all writing is CRAP, it's mathematically certain that copyright spares us from FAR more dreck than good."
Including the crap pumped out by the corporations you tirelessly defend - more so, in fact since they're driven by marketing rather than artistic merit. Yet, you'll happily defend them while attacking independent authors.
I admire your dedication to writing absolute crap every time you come here, so that your statistic remains true, however..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
From what I saw a good portion of the book is taking Bond out of his classic superspy environment and putting him into everyday life. That seems pretty creative to me.
Try rummaging through http://www.fanfiction.net/ for the utter DRECK fans write.
You mean like 50 Shades of Grey, now a major motion picture? Yes, I imagine there's stuff that sucks there, but there's also really good stuff.
Since 99% of all writing is CRAP, it's mathematically certain that copyright spares us from FAR more dreck than good.
I'd rather have a much larger 1% available to me and just ignore the 99% dreck.
Anyway. Where, oh, where will you get a next topic? Peeking in dumpsters? Brands of urinal cakes? -- Oh, look at this wet spot the dog made, it's Eric Schmidt in silhouette!
Mike frequently writes about copyright and its effects. This piece is definitely more on-base than some other ones. Complaining about how he got the topic for his article in the mail is a textbook example of a genetic fallacy.
Also, as explained many times to you, this is Mike's goddamn blog and he can write about whatever the hell he wants. If you don't like it, there's the little red X in the top right corner of your screen. (Unless you're on a Mac, then it's the little red circle in the upper left.
Please contribute to the 99% of dreck elsewhere, perhaps on the dreaded fanfiction.net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
A quick question for you:
Why is an author building of of their work creative, but somebody else doing exactly the same not creative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
Second, yes, 99% may be crap but I'd rather follow the simple math rules mentioned on another reply to your idiocy and have 1% of a lot than 1% of a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO part of creativity is imitating 60-year old books! Only done by hacks to leech off others!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect, Mike. Geoblocks apply everywhere, it's just that the ones most commonly noted are the ones preventing people from outside the US from accessing Hollywood content. You are prevented from accessing a great amount of content from the US as well, it's just that most Americans don't try because you get a better default service for the most part.
It's also worth noting that this is simply how things used to be, and the business model that's outdated. At least here, there's a reasonable justification from the publisher (you may not like their reaction, but you can understand why they don't wish to open themselves to legal action). That's much better than "the business model we built decades ago demands we ignore modern distribution and block half our potential customer base".
As before, Americans will still be able to read this book, they'll just have to legally import a copy (by going to Canada themselves or getting a delivery) - or, of course, download an infringing copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The roots are dead. Take your pick between the branches and the fruit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's seems you have been shaken and not stirred by my sarcasm :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO SOMETHING!!!
Copy these stories and forward them to as many politicians you can and ask for their opinion and their support in removing all copyright laws that prevent the promotion of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DO SOMETHING!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DO SOMETHING!!!
That has already been bought by others. You know, the very same people who have created the situation we're unhappy about.
"removing all copyright laws"
I prefer realistic goals myself. That is never going to happen, especially not in the current climate.
I appreciate the sentiment, but what you're talking about is more of a waste of time than any conversation here would be. Plus, you make the error of assuming that commenting here automatically means that people aren't taking action elsewhere. That is untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DO SOMETHING!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DO SOMETHING!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DO SOMETHING!!!
We'd be better off encouraging each other to stop using maximalist language, particularly words based around portraying copyright as property that should be protected. Copyright is a temporary monopoly privilege that gives rightsholders the right to sue for infringement. That's all it is and all it does. The sooner people realize that, the better we'll be able to push back against this crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
life plus 50 ?
so the guy now is violating the law ....thank conservatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: life plus 50 ?
Copyrighted works in Canada still follows the "Life plus 50 years" standard from the Berne Convention.
You may be confusing the extention of copyrighted performances which increased from 50 years from the original performance to 70 years from the original performance.
where you got 80 from, I do not know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Posthumous copyright extensions are theft
The spoils of those thefts are distributed to non-artists (heirs, estates, politicians, record company executives). Any promotion of the dead artists work they could achieve pales when compared by the promotion of being freely accessible, and freely forming the base of new art, the way culture is supposed to work.
The proliferation of art is turned into a secondary goal to the proliferation of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How times change.
The mind fair boggles at the thought of it now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How times change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The name is Bond, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I imagine that this is one more 'good' reason for Canada being put right back into that 301 "naughty list" again and push their copyright to synchronize with other "civilized" countries life (or death?) + 70 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US needs to free James Bond!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]